Iberia IB6166, BOS-MAD, 2nd Dec, Cowboys !!!!

[LightTwin Driver]

We were parked up in Boston last night when it began to snow,having been forecast for a number of hours.
We immediately called for de-icing to be ready once we were all closed up,but we then had a delay due to ground handling company staff shortages.
In the meantime this gave us a perfect seat to watch with astonishment when the Iberia A340 parked next to us called up for push and start.
ATC asked whether he had de-iced and he replied that 'we do not need to'.
I immediately replied with a 'yes you do!!' as the whole of the A340 was covered in snow,with visible deposits on all surfaces including the tops of the wings.
But this was ignored and they pushed back,sarcastically waving as they did.
I discussed this with the co pilot and we both agreed that this was madness.
I called ATC and just stated that the A340 was covered in snow,as we had a birds eye view,hoping they would intervene in the interests of safety.
But that was the last we heard,and they took off.
Quite possibly the most unprofessional bit of aviation I've ever seen.

[joehunt]

It is a well established fact that, just because you fly for a "flag carrier" does not make you immune from stupidity.

Just wander if any of the other poor pax and crew realised it may have been their last flight. No doubt in the ensuing "accident" report the blame would be put on other parties, by the registry authority.

[fruitbat]

At the end of the day, its the Captains decision. He made a decision based on what he could see and using his expereince and company procedures. It's not really your place to start questioning his professionalism behind his back with ATC or indeed on this forum.

[Few Cloudy]

Correct call?

Boy! some of you have a lot to learn.

FC.

[568]

Just read your thread, I can't believe the lack of understanding of this crew in icing conditions.

The fact that you as a crew were "looking out" for these cowboys, in itself should be highly praised. Good CRM as far as I am concerned, so if I had been the Iberia crew, this information would have been welcomed!

A brief story, if you don't mind!

A few years back in ANC I had asked for de-icing (heavy jet).
Well what do you know; A few minutes later we receive a call from the ground person informing the crew we had completed de-icing.

I turned around and asked the other two crew members if they had heard the start time for the second application of fluid (we used 2 step de-icing then).

None of us could reason as to why we had not been told this. I called the de-icing supervisor and asked what was going on. He did not know the procedures as he was new to the job, so I requested an engineer to start the whole process again.

The impression I got was "it was good enough", but I countered this by saying, "proper procedure or we don't go", period.

I never rush briefings etc or go outside any "hold over" times in these weather conditions, I go when we are ready!

[dhc1180]

and they wonder why they skid off runways at quito?

[fruitbat]

Very often deposits that look like frost on the top of the wings turn out to be just condensation. For all you know the Iberia Captain had been on a high lift and established that. You can't start making judgement calls from the stand next door! By all means bring it to their attention but once they have answered you, respect their view and don't start mentioning it on a forum like this with exact flight numbers etc...

[Big Kahuna Burger]

Fruitbat, your the bloody fruit loop mate. And it seems that youve changed your stance from 'dont question his professionalism' to 'by all means bring it to his attention.

I would have blushed, but welcomed the observation. And he didnt do it behind Iberias back he did it on the same frequency.

Id prefer LTD parked next to me the adjacent stand any day, than a donkey such as you !

[Max Angle]

He made it home safely, therefore he made a correct call that time.If that comment is not a joke could you please tell us what carrier you work for so we can all avoid it.

He may or may not have needed to be de-iced (chances are he did as it was snowing and by the sounds of it everyone else thought they needed it to) but just because he got away with it does NOT mean he made the right call. If they had lost an engine during the take off it may have been a very different story. :ugh:

[fruitbat]

Ok, that was worded wrongly... My only point is how far can we go? We are entrusted to do the job to a safe standard and yes everyone should look out for each other, but at the end of the day, its their judgement call. Every airline has different procedures, and I know mine, but I certainly know nothing of Iberia's or Ryanair's etc. Putting a thread on here with an emotive title like 'Iberia Cowboys' wouldn't seem to be in the best interests of the profession, considering the readership. Things are not always as they seem

[MungoP]

FRUITBAT
At least you had the good taste to have selected an appropriate pseudonym

Since when has getting away with it (this time) been acceptable policy for ANY pilot.. never mind a capt of a major carrier ?

[LightTwin Driver]

At the end of the day, its the Captains decision. He made a decision based on what he could see and using his expereince and company procedures. It's not really your place to start questioning his professionalism behind his back with ATC or indeed on this forum. I doubt every decision you make is perfect either.


If his company procedure allow him to take off with his upper wings COVERED in moderate deposits of snow,then I'm damn glad I never have to fly with IB.

I didn't question his professionalism behind his back with ATC.

I merely mentioned that he had a serious need to deice when he said he didn't-which he ignored.

At no time after the snow had started did we see any tech crew come outside and look at the airframe -and we were parked at an angle to him so we could literally see the whole left side of his aircraft.

I told ATC,after he had pushed because I was seriously concerned for his passenger's safety,which is more than he was.

If ANY other pilot passed a comment concerning my aeroplane,I would always check it out,as we all make mistakes.

To ignore this AND then to have to convince ATC 3 times that he didn't need de-icing was beyond belief.

[kotakota]

If the wing ain't clean , we do not go , full stop.
In a 74 in Canada many moons ago , asked for de-icing , very experienced eng said ' Its only dry snow , it will blow off during the take-off run ' . He was probably correct , but - 'no clean wing , no go' , sorry.
After all , its not as if the pilots had to pay for it !

[tablelover]

Think I have to agree with Fruitbat and my understanding of his point of view.

To claim to have the full understanding of any investigations the Iberia crew have already conducted is arrogant and thoroughly unproffessional to attempt to name and shame them here. As you say at no time did you see any tech crew check his aircraft this doesnt mean it didnt happen. Indeed I would hope you were concentrating on your own aircraft and procedures. You were unsure whether he was sufficiently deiced and you voiced your concern, fair enough, good call even. BUt thats where it ends. He is the Captain of his aircraft its his decision, to assume a lack of professionalism because you disagree with that is wrong especially when not party to any discussions held in a cockpit you were not in.

As for comments that although he made it back safely doesnt mean it was the right decision, I'm afraid we have to assume it does. We cannot start offering what ifs and buts to justify our arguements based on no knowledge other than that placed here by someone who may be miffed that he looked stupid on the radio when he was ignored.

[fruitbat]

I love the fact people of so rational on this forum! I am purely pointing out that we have to respect other pilots' professionalism. It does no one any good to publicly slate one of our own on an open forum. It just gives the Daily Mail something to write. If you are concerned go through the proper industry channels.

Do we have to go back on stand every time a cabin crew member hears a funny noise, or a passenger see's fuel 'leaking' from the end of the wing, as can be the case on my aircraft. No, we use of knowledge and professionalism to make an informed decision, explain what the problem was, and thank them for their observation.

The Iberia has no way of answering your rather over enthusiastic critisisms and thus this is no place to start questioning his operation.

[DA50driver]

Do you have any idea how many Cowboys you have offended?

My philosophy is: If I wonder if I should de-ice, then I should.

(A man walks into a bar and says "All lawyers are a..holes". One man stands up and says " I don't appreciate that remark". The other guy then says " Why, are you a lawyer?", He says "No, I am an a..hole.)

[lomapaseo]

I tend to agree with the coments that discussion of criticsm based on the reported circumstances is warranted, but discussions of specific culpability by identifying the exact flight and operator treads into areas that I fear a public forum should never go.

Someday you may be on the recieving end as well and then back to the dark ages and witches stakes

[LightTwin Driver]

Think I have to agree with Fruitbat and my understanding of his point of view.

To claim to have the full understanding of any investigations the Iberia crew have already conducted is arrogant and thoroughly unproffessional to attempt to name and shame them here. As you say at no time did you see any tech crew check his aircraft this doesnt mean it didnt happen. Indeed I would hope you were concentrating on your own aircraft and procedures. You were unsure whether he was sufficiently deiced and you voiced your concern, fair enough, good call even. BUt thats where it ends. He is the Captain of his aircraft its his decision, to assume a lack of professionalism because you disagree with that is wrong especially when not party to any discussions held in a cockpit you were not in.

As for comments that although he made it back safely doesnt mean it was the right decision, I'm afraid we have to assume it does. We cannot start offering what ifs and buts to justify our arguements based on no knowledge other than that placed here by someone who may be miffed that he looked stupid on the radio when he was ignored.





I'm sorry,but you are talking utter bollox.


It is airmanship,pure and simple.

ATC tried to drop hints that he was the only aircraft not deicing,we tried to tell him.

It's a no-brainer.If you have any deposits on the upper wing surfaces,you deice.This guy was COVERED in snow,and it was falling continuously and moderately.

So you'd rather we not speak up and watch as 300 punters plough into the sea !!


As to concentrating on our own aircraft,we were but nothing more could be done whilst we waited for our own deicing rigs to eventually turn up.

We weren't made to look stupid on the radio-if you think trying to help out a fellow professional pilot made me look stupid,then I guess you need to work hard at your homework to get on in this world.

I'm not going to get into a slanging match with the usual PPrune sados.

It may be wrong for me to post up here about this guy,but for him to ignore all advice/hits/warnings from other aviators and ATC is bloody disgraceful and dangerous.

Bye.

[gofer]

Right call LTD - Safety 1st, 2nd and 3rd. There will still be enough accidents for the statistics even if safety also comes 4th 5th and 6th..... Don't forget Murphy is at large at all airports and everywhere in between as well, and he works for all companies! :ok::ok::ok:

[tablelover]

Read my post again.

Never questionned your airmanship, agreed it was a good call to mention it on the atc freq. Never suggested you dont speak up, u did and as far as you know a conversation ensued that came to an agreement not to deice. What deicing had he already received? what was the subsequent holdover time? Didnt suggest you were miffed but was meant to suggest thats why you posted such an emotively titled thread.

As for talking bollux, sir I'm entitled to my opinion even if it is one that differs to yours. No need to be irrational, next you'll be suggesting a colleague in a neighbouring aircraft that has a different opinion to you is a cowboy. If you feel as strongly as you obviously do about this situation there are more appropriate channels to go through than publically criticising a fellow professional crew without knowing the facts.

[Inspector Clueless]

So,erm let me get this right Fruity & Co as I think I am missing something.

If you were sat next to an airliner that appeared to your professional eye,in weather conditions that you deemed a relevant concern,to be contaminated-you would pass no comment?

So-if you experienced windshear on approach or departure for example,you would say nothing also as presumably the commander will have telepathy to assit him in the event no-one else does?

A polite riposte may be in order-but I think LTDs comments were designed to prevent not provoke.

3 years ago in FRA-I was sat opposite a C-17 at the holding point of 18 in steady snow,we waited 15 mins or so for our turn to be sprayed,the C-17 elected to "give it a go"-we had a grand view of his upper surfaces and let them know they were covered before they blasted off into the murk.

He replied that they were "inside the holdover-but thanks anyway"

Lufthansa then also piped up-and with a pause,the C-17 vacated the runway and were re-done behind us.

Flight safety is no place for political correctness-unless of course your parked next to "Teddy Bear Air":rolleyes:

IC

[fruitbat]

I totally agree, and anyone would be mad not to listen. But we must assume the Iberia crew did listen and for a reason unbeknown to us they felt they were safe and within all the limits.

We can't have people getting on this forum after a night out of bed and directly accusing a crew, purely because their view was different.

[ScottyDawg]

:uhoh:Fruity-babe:uhoh:.... aye..you..!

Look forward to your self-effacing thread regarding the next "icing" incident that pops up on an AAIB or NTSB report...

How many times in CRM lectures have we all sat and viewed with incredulity the Air Florida incident in Washington (Potomac) in the 80's and innumerable other such instances (CL-604 at BHX a few years back).. where aircraft commanders choosing to dice (sorry no pun) with icing issues has resulted in headlines the next day

Well done LTD... you displayed your professionalism as an aviator.. and your compassion for the travelling public at large... would be proud to call you a colleague and travel behind you any day :D:D

[ICEMAN757200]

SOME YEARS AGO DOING MIA-MAD ON THE 747 WE HAD THESE GUYS BEHIND US TRYING TO SNEAK THEM SELVES ON THE APP SEQUENCE , ANYWAY WE LANDED FIRST AND WE TOOK ONE OF THE LAST TAXYWAYS, AS WE TURNED OFF AND TAXIED TO THE TERMINAL, WE SAW THIS IB GUYS LANDING , AND LEAVING THRU ONE OF THE FIRST HIGH SPEED TURN OFF SMOKING ALL 12 TYRES OF THEIR 747 JUST TO GET IN FRONT OF US.:eek:(IT WAS A NICE SHOW TO WATCH):}:=
SO AFTER ALL THEY STILL HAVE SOME COWBOYS !:p:mad:
IF A WAS THE CAPT OF THAT FLIGHT AT JFK I WILL THANK YOU THE COMMENT:ok:, EVEN IF I KNEW IT WAS SAVE TO GO.GOOD CRM:ok:

[tablelover]

So we start naming and shaming crews 'we' think are wrong and labelling them as cowboys?

No one is questionning the intital call to atc, in fact its the one thing everyone is agreed on. Slightly disturbed that very few think its unacceptable to come on here and identify a crew and acuse them of something the media could get hold off and produce a sensationlist front page.

The story according to LTD is that they raised the issue as a concern, and quite right to no one disagrees with that. We dont know what deicing had occured and the subsequent holdover times that resulted, but we have to assume the Iberia crew made a decision based on their experience and knowledge and in accordance with their sops. Why then if that decision differs to ours are they cowboys?

[Sir George Cayley]

Speaking to an ATC professional recently, he alluded to the fact that the Spanish flag carrier figured prominently in runway incursions and level busts in the airspace he worked.

I think there have been enough stories of spanish practice here to warrant flagging up concerns to the appropriate authorities: even if it only achieves an "I told you so" at the subsequent enquiry.

LTD, Sir, have you considered filing an MOR and using the free text box to request the info is sent to the Spanish CAA (AENA)?

It will be interesting, once EASA assumes European responsibility for all safety domains, what the filing of a Euro MOR will achieve, but until then I'd suggest at least file it so a record exists.

Another one off my list.

Sir George Cayley

[AVOdriver]

We have this posted in our line station and thought it may make interesting reading. It would in my view totally validate Light Twin Drivers concern.

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/041229.htm

If link does not work go to www.ntsb.gov (http://www.ntsb.gov) search "wing upper surface ice accumulation"

[merlinxx]

That NTSB link won't come up. Any other refs SVP

[LightTwin Driver]

We dont know what deicing had occured and the subsequent holdover times that resulted, but we have to assume the Iberia crew made a decision based on their experience and knowledge and in accordance with their sops. Why then if that decision differs to ours are they cowboys?

Yes we do-NONE!!!!!


Nobody had deiced because there was no snow falling all day.It was forecast from about 3 pm local time.

It started falling at about 6 and within half an hour the viz was down to a mile and the runways were contaminated.

I can assure you that Iberia did not carry out any deiceing whatsoever-when I did our external check I would have noticed any fluid on the ground,as our wing tips were very close.


I have been a professional pilot over 20 years.

I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.

The fact that we politely told ATC/Iberia that they were covered in snow and they then waved at us as they pushed says it all-they would have seen us beginning deicing just as they pushed.

I would have hoped that they would have seen how much we had picked up on all surfaces and possibly deduced that they had a similar amount,having arrived just before us-but no,just a sarcastic wave from all 3 crew members.

I 'd make the same judgement every time-I just hope that it's not frivolously ignored next time.

[vakantieman]

Wel, I worked a couple of years in Italy as a captain on the ATR. I saw many of my collegues taking of with their wings full of frost. Why? Pressure from the management to save costs. And unfortunately many of them think that a thin layer of frost on the wings doesnt affect the aerodynamics of the plane. So, avoid I-registered ATR's.

Happy landings, vakantieman

[AVOdriver]

Sitting at work with v limited access so no google etc.
Clicked my own post to check and both links are working for me.
Maybe try searching National Transportation Safety Board
Alert was issued Dec 29, 2004, Titled: Alert to Pilots: Wing Upper Surface Ice Accumulation.

Just in case you dont find it to quote two very small extracts
"According to wind tunnel data, a wing upper suface roughness caused by particles of only 1-2 mm diameter (size of a grain of table salt) at a density of one particle per square centimeter, can cause lift losses of about 22 and 33 percent in ground effect and free air respectively".

And
"The bottom line is that pilots should be aware that no amount of snow, ice or frost accumulation on the wing upper surface can be considered safe for takeoff"

i.e. you get my vote for sure.

[HeadingSouth]

well done LTD !

if i was SLF on that iberia plane i would have appreciated your intervention LTD. for the sake of arriving home safe and sound with my family.

and so would have the other 300 odd SLF too, i am sure.

that they took off without de-icing is up to them; the term cowboy might be a bit harsh.

what worries me most is the reaction of your fellow captains. i hope they never need a hint about a safety concern - and i really hope i'll never have one of them in the cockpit when i am SLF...

how close the escape for the iberia passengers was - no one really knows. i m glad they made it home despite ignoring all safety warnings.

safe flights everyone !

[tablelover]

LTD I dont wish to get into an argument or appear to be attacking you.

However it is accepted practice to apply a preventative anti ice if conditions forecasted dictate it necessary. Not having access to the IB 340 tech log or holdover times to hand or evidence to suggest this may have been done before the aircraft was possibly towed onto stand it is just a theory based on what you have previously stated here.

But the issue continually put to you is that this is the wrong place for bar room rants that identify others as unprofessional cowboys. If you feel strongly about this use the correct channels. As a veteran of 20yrs in this industry you should know this.

And please do make the same call to ATC in the future it is to be commended I would do the same it is what sets us apart from many industries, ignoring commercial rivalries for the sake of safety.

[calypso]

Might this not be a case of not what you say but how you say it?

Shouting on the radio "YES YOU DO!" when ATC is asking them if they need to deice and posting "Iberia Cowboys" flight so and so. Perhaps not the best way to put your point across.

How about:

"IBXXX from XXXX we are next to you on the ramp and for your information we can see large deposits of snow in your wing".

and

"Iberia deicing procedures?" the other day bla, bla bla (ie the actual flight de-identified)


For the avoidance of doubt I do agree they should be told and they are cowboys if they did take off with a contaminated wing. I do not defend the actions of the IB crew.

[LightTwin Driver]

I take your point.

I didn't shout anything.

The RT was very busy,as always at Logan.

I was merely trying to get his attention.

[justinzider]

I was on a later BOS-LHR service and the Iberia situation was mentioned by our ground staff. All aircraft required de-icing last night. Virgin Aer Lingus and BA were fighting for the only available rig at the international terminal.

Chirp anyone?

[stilton]

LTD, you did exactly the right thing and I would have done the same.

'Cowboys' is a highly appropriate and perhaps overly polite description of these pilots actions.

I don't take off without a clean wing, full stop.If someone had pointed out to me that was not the case I would have thanked them and had the de icing repeated.

I doubt too many real 'Cowboys' are surfing the Pprune, or would be offended, if so perhaps they could p**s off where the Buffalo roam..

[RAT 5]

Now, this professional colleague was parked on a neighbouring stand. Knowing Boston there must have been neighbouring a/c at the holding point. What did they see? Pushing back with accumulation on the wings is not professional, and not telling them is not friendly. Seeing the same thing at the holding point is not only not professional and not friendly is it is an accessory before the fact.
I hope we all look out for each other out there. One day it might be you!!!

An aside. Do any of the Iberia main airports become effected by snow etc often? Remember Air Florida and Potomac?!? Unfamiliar crew with unfamiliar conditions.

Better to be 20 mins late than 20 years early.

[Aramis]

Hi
i took the liberty of pasting the original post of LTD for the spanish guys with a quick note...hopefully it will spread among them too..

never too late too see the risk they took...it might convince the next rotation crew.

Ps.but enough of silly comments about the all IB way of riding the horse...we have all seen the good and bad everywhere...regardless of ice.
stupidity doesn't have a passport.

[Zoner]

Well done LTD. You are a true professional.
A few years back I was told by the Fed Ex behind me that my Horizontal Stab had a lot of snow. We had been de-iced but the ground staff had run out of fluid and neglected to tell us. I very much appreciated the comment from Fed Ex, thanked him, and went back to the ramp.

[windytoo]

LTD ,I agree with you entirely ,however I dont think they were waving at you , I guess they must have been practising their lassoing techniques.

[BYALPHAINDIA]

LTD, I am totally in agreement with your concerns at the attitude of the IB A340 crew.

This attitude is not good for the Industry, Especially the safety of the Airframe and all aboard.:ugh:

It sounds like the IB crew didn't carealess, As to any concerns coming from yourself and any other like minded proffessionals.

The Tower ATC didn't sound too bothered either??:=

If you turned the tables, And it was you pushing back, Would they have said anything about you not being de iced??:*

Sounds like IB needs more CRM & decision making training??:D

[ATC Watcher]

The Tower ATC didn't sound too bothered either??

It is not in the power of ATC to stop anyone on a de-icing issue. It is the captain of that aircraft own and only responsibility. He is in the aircraft and (should) know what he has to do.
I know of some (small) companies that sometimes try to delay de-icing for ecomomic reasons. (e.i. to avoid the costs) But that is not the case with IB and major carriers.

[jurassicjockey]

Re a comment earlier in the thread that the aircraft may have been deiced earlier.

According to LTD the viz was 1 mile in snow late in the afternoon. According to our viz charts if it was still daylight, then it would have been considered moderate snowfall, if it was dark, then this is considered heavy snowfall. According to the holdover charts for SAE type IV, there is NO published holdover times for heavy snow. In moderate it would be 35 mins. Not to say that he can't take off in heavy snow, or after 35 mins but an inspection of the fluid would be required, and if he isn't familiar with deicing and type IV fluid, and the signs of fluid breakdown, then it would be best if it was done by somebody else. I find it highly unlikely that an earlier spray at the gate in those conditions would have been sufficient.
I really don't understand the mindset that allows a "professional" crew to depart with snow on the wings. LTD did what needed to be done. In Canada, enforcement action is a possibility for departing with a contaminated wing, and for good reason. There is no excuse..

[Camout]

After all the blaming and sniping between the contributors of this post has finished, at least it has raised the awareness of this safety critical subject.

North America has had a pretty poor record where De/Anti icing is concerned.

How many times have I asked for a 'spray over' and then be challenged by the agent " Gee, ABC 123, just left and he didn't deice"

Make it clean & keep it clean.

A clear and unambiguous transmission to a 'dirty aeroplane' is a responsible action and provides an audit trail to those who consider that the laws of physic's to not apply to them.

[riptack]

Iberia's main hub in MAD sees it's fair share of snow/ice in Jan/Feb so the crew should be familiar. I've flown several times from MAD with IB and been de-iced.

While I applaud the commradship of informing a neighbouring plane of what you can see I do think we must remember that all companies have cowboys if you think you firm doesn't think again!! It's a little unfair to cruzify IB for the actions of one captain. Furthermore there are probably limited Spanish crew reading this thread so v little chance of defence!

[bluefalcon]

I agree entirely in what the basic rule is; safety and solely that before anything else. BUT what I don´t agree with AT ALL, is the judging of an airlines reputation, of a main european carrier, a one world alliance member,an airline with an incident record dating from 1927 that many wish would have.
The quote; "Ib cowboys" is something that you should rap up, fill up with ketchup and stick in that pie hole that you seem to have, and first of all if you have all those years of experience you should have learned that generalising what 1 person does and comparing it with the others has as much value as your way of calling the ib pilots attention= none.
If you go one day to work with fatigue or without a proper rest, you would also be putting in danger the rest of the passengers as this capt did. Wouldnt it sound ridicoulous if I wanted to refer to you by talking of evryone in your airline.
Peace out buddy,, things like this happen every second of the day,, and youre not going to make the world a safer place with that attitude.

[Pjlot]

Washington National airport, Air florida Flight 90 departed gate 12 after being delayed for an hour and twenty minutes after de-icing. Just before take off the first officer voiced his concern saying that he had been a while since de-icing and both pilots could see the show on the wings.

The flight continued and took off. What resulted was devistion for most of the passengers onboard and for commuters stopped on the 14th st bridge over the Potomac River. The737 slammed into the bridge and then into the frozen river Potomac. All but 5 of the passengers on board lost their lives.

Check out the NTSB reports, this was the result of chain of events but mainly weakly mixed de-icing solution and the accumulated snow on both wings because of the delayed take off after de-icing!!

Video footage etc is availabe of the actual event. Its quite disturbing. This was 25 years ago, we are now in 2007 surely no pilot should allow themselves enter a situation that has the potential to result in another accident like this.

[AviatorAtHeart]

Well done LTD! You've done what anyone responsible would have done in your situation. Unfortunately you see this kind of behavior in many walks of life, except here this guy endangered all PAX on board and people on ground had he went down. I don't think that you calling them cowboys and posting this info here is wrong at all - good job !:ok:

[Rananim]

Very emotive thread.Pilots must watch out for each other.However,the way you do it is almost as important as the cause of your concern.Never openly contradict another professional on an open frequency.Make an observation and repeat it until you've been heard loud and clear.If hes as professional as you are,he'll heed the warning.In this case,the Iberia pilots would have responded with"Thank you for your advice.We're going to make another inspection and review our decision."
If you intercede indiscreetly and aggressively,you end up defeating your own good intentions.Privately,you might be fuming,but always follow the protocol.There are exceptions to the rule of course(like witnessing a line-up on a closed/wrong runway).In that case,protocol be damned and you do what must be done.
Additionally,by naming the airline in question,the company could trace the crew in question through the date and type of aircraft.You were right to post but should not have mentioned the airline in question.

[whartonp]

As a professional, licenced pilot there is a duty and legal requirement to report any un-airworthy or suspected un-airworthy condition. This does not apply just to the aircraft that you are sitting in. Check the ANO.
If you see an aircraft taxi past with a slide dangling out of the bottom of the door you must not only report it you should also raise an MOR. If you see an A/C taxi past which you suspect may be covered with ice the very least you should do is tell somebody about it. That is good airmanship. Pretending that you didn't see it is poor airmanship.

[Super VC-10]

All but 5 of the passengers on board survived.


Not so! Only 5 of the passengers on board survived.

[GMDS]

Many moons ago a skipper of a renowned carrier travelled ID-pax on a smaller national carrier. After push-back, seeing the wing nicely covered with snow and realizing they were not deicing, he asked the hoastie to tell the captain just that, identifying himself as a fellow captain. She came back reporting the PIC said the passenger should mind his own business. The skipper, as able body beeing seated at a emergency exit, then opened this overwing window to avoid take-off.
Outcome of the story: He got arrested and convicted for endagering flight operations.
The flight later took off deiced.
Food for thought

[The SSK]

Question from a curious non-pilot (you can flame me for my cheek/ignorance if you like)

Would a BOS/MAD normally be a 3-crew operation? In other words would there have been one or two senior pilots involved in the 'go' decision?

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Follow-on from GMDS' post. What to do if you are an aviation professional, but travelling as SLF, and notice something 'less than optimal' in the operation? eg snow/ice on the wing, flaps/slats incorrectly configured.

Even after bringing the observation to the CA, does one blithely sit and trust to luck as Captain Speaking (Big Ego & 4 Bars) attempts to facilitate an early rendezvous with one's Maker?

[GearDown&Locked]

Even after bringing the observation to the CA, does one blithely sit and trust to luck as Captain Speaking (Big Ego & 4 Bars) attempts to facilitate an early rendezvous with one's Maker?

No, you politely ask to be disembarked immediately, for health reasons.

This looks like one of those airline admission interview questions.:D

[NiceoneHoskins!]

LTD - In essence what you did was completely warranted and professional..BUT my recall of the original reasoning for the introduction of CRM all those years ago was that any Crew Member [ or observer ? ] irrrespective of his seniority should be emboldened to get his message accross....vehemently if neccessary. But in this particular case I would have thought that as this particular situation wasn't ' time critical' that the choice of a few milder ..yes, gentler words, may have stroked this confused mans ego to the point where he may have resorted to actually getting his aircraft de-iced. Which is what you were after in the first place.

RANAMIN. Please excuse me asking . But how many voices do you actually hear at any one time ?

[Seloco]

A few years back now, I was a pax on a LGW-NCE company charter. We had two aircraft - a 732 and a MD83. Although it was April, some freak weather conditions resulted in heavy snowfall at Gatwick prior to departure. In spite of deicing, departure delays meant that both aircraft had accumulated more snow by the time their turn had come for take-off. The 733 I was on managed to shed the snow covering the wings at rotation and we flew uneventfully to Nice. Some time after the following M83 had failed to arrive we heard that its snow covering had passed straight into the engines at rotation. It struggled into the air, and managed to land at Filton on one engine at the second attempt after using up fuel. Several passengers declined the replacement flight later, after the experience.

I'm always very sympathetic to delays caused by de-icing after that.

[DIRRIK]

LTD, in my opinion correct call. :ok:

You should have taken out your camera and film it. :p Maybe a passenger did it and we will see it on the internet soon...

I wouldnt say that all Iberia pilots are cowboys because a couple of macho's think they are above the rules of aerodynamics.
The stupidity of the crew operating that particular flight is already big enough :ugh:.

[manrow]

Correct call LTD.

While I don't particularly like the title of the thread I see no alternative if we are to avoid fellow pilots being pressured by management in to taking off with the wings/fuselage as described. If the crew were 'just in a hurry' then the more publicity this thread attracts the better.

While it is a long time since I did a deicing course, I thought that with the correct fluid applied within the holdover times that snow would not accummulate in the manner described.

[Yeles]

I ve been reading 70 percent of the posts of thios thread and I have to admit that some of them in my opinion are correct. But in fact i want to clarify some things just from my point of view as pilot.

Of course I agree, that any comment made aiming for a higher safety for flight it is widely appreciated by any pilot (or has to be appreciated even if it comes from somebody who is not specialized or known in the matter itself). But as far as I know and I was not in that place to see it of course, it has to stay just as an appreciation. Most of the procedures within the companies are different all over the world and of course also different for every airplane. for a lot of companies de icing is not needed as far as the cover it is not higher than a certain value and of course depending on the kind of covering and if it is snow raining or whatever at the time of take off. Of course there are a lot of things more to consider for the de icing. That is the reason why a suggestion coulkd be enough because unless you fly the same airplane in the same company you cannot be sure about the procedures to be followed and in what circumstances.

On the other side, it is true and sad that there are a lot of cowboys flying all over the world not only in iberia. So please keep your overall appreciation of Iberia s pilot for you because most probably this pilot you saw departing with snow in the wings was for sure one of the only examples you can give.

I think all of us we have to be careful when giving bad appreciations of pilots in general in any company just because we have seen something strange or maybe dangerous. Every person is different and of course also in the worst companies, known for their bad policy and bad actions are good pilots and colleagues.

In any case as I said before any comment related to safety is always welcomed.:)

[Mach trim]

Light twin driver


Clearly you did the right thing at the time.

Was the snow dry or wet ?

Well Boston being by the sea it was probably damp and this is not good.

If the snow is dry and not sticky it will blow off on take off .

As an FO we took off with snow on the wing once.
I told the Captain I wanted to get all the dry snow off the wing prior to TO
and disagreed with him prior to. He overuled me, time pressure.
An experienced Captain in Canadian winter operations.
He said it will blow off and it did but...





As stated it is worse with frost or a layer that has stuck to the wing.

I am not condoning their ( possibly ) illegal actions but imagine what the NTSB
investigator would investigate.

Error producing conditions.

Say there was an accident on this day ?

Could you give us some more facts ?

The Errors are in the system.

If a pilot reports snow on another aircraft and expresses concern to ATC.

Perhaps there should be a regulation that the aircraft should be inspected.
When in doubt ?

Perhaps your answer " Yes, you do " in part motivated the Iberia to take off just to snub you as he may have found it patronizing.

If you had worded it differently that he perhaps would have had the ground de-icing crews perform an inspection. The Spanish are very proud.
Of course egos cannot get in the way of safety.

Iberia has been for sale for a while and there are organizational pressures.


Is it legal to take off with a contaminated wing, no.


How close were you to the aircraft ?

[FirstStep]

I seldom post, but when I see/feel the need...

To the crew who believed it necessary to inform another crew of a potentially dangerous situation, "Thank You".

Whether it "was" actually dangerous( sufficient snow? ) or not, I will leave that up to the PIC, but, don't we all not have an obligation to each other- not to mention the flying public- to look out for one-another.

If I saw what was described, I would do the same. If I did not, and God forbid, an accident occurred, I would have a hard time living with myself.:ugh:

I hope when I'm flying, and one of You see something that in you opinion needs to be brought to my attention, I pray I have the common courtesy to thank you, whether I find it has merit or not.

[The Bartender]

While it is a long time since I did a deicing course, I thought that with the correct fluid applied within the holdover times that snow would not accummulate in the manner described.

Correct! If the fluid is still doing it's thing, the snow will usually be absorbed, not accumulate on top of it...

[Robeki]

I wouldn’t run and make any conclusions on this hacked one-sided story. I am fortunate enough to know a few IBERIA pilots and I can tell you they are extremely professional individuals.

QUOTE: I immediately replied with a 'yes you do!!'

Yeah, that comment in itself made me realize what a professional individual this “Light Twin Driver” is.

As far as I know, IBERIA airplanes are not falling out of the sky every day. IN FACT, both KLM and Airfrance have far uglier accident statistics. Would you call Airfrance and KLM pilots Cowboys? Why don’t you just go ahead and call all pilots, excluding yourself, inept cowboys?

After reading countless replies, I guess I forgot that only UK pilots are worthy of flying airplanes. Last time I checked, I can’t find a single Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, or Swedish pilot who shut down the wrong engine of a passenger airliner. Touche.

[Mach trim]

Well put first step.

I have also observed some 340 Iberia Captains in the sim and I was impressed
sharp excellent professionals who are also gentlemen.

[blueball]

I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the Iberia crew. I think it is wrong to assume that they did not check their aircraft before departure. If the snow was not "adhering" to the aircraft then they obviously made the right decision. Some of these things are learned through experience.

[nivsy]

From only a pax point of view - and not from the sharp end - being a more than regular user of Iberia - what I have observed from the cabin in terms of safety is a rather preofessional show. Ofcourse you do get the odd one or two crew members who have maybe got out of bed the wrong way - but nevertheless the attention to detail on safety briefings and keeping aisles clear and ensuring baggage well secured in lockers and well tucked under seats in front during take-off and landings is carried out well. When seated in emergency exit locations - crew clearly explain which sometimes bothers me on UK carriers where the occupant maybe has english as not the mother tongue - and often than not the UK cabin crew just go through the drill anyway. Iberia crew - in my experience have a good grasp of various languages - a sad factor differential when flying UK carriers - while acknowledging that English is "the be all".

I have not done long haul with Iberia - but as far as European sectors are concerned - more than happy trusting their ability.


Nivsy

[Robeki]

Bactrack,
He won’t file any reports because he really doesn’t care. All he wants is to come on here and insult the 1,600 pilots who fly for that airline. This is the kind of person that would call BBC seconds after a disaster to let them know why he was right and the Iberia pilots were wrong. We have all met a person like him.

[justinzider]

Christ guys! The snow had ALREADY adhered! It was so visible to everyone that it must have been 2 inches (5cms) thick, just as it was on every car in Boston as we drove to the airport!

[DIRRIK]

Robeki,

Can't agree more with flybmi.

Hasta luego!

[ManaAdaSystem]

Having read some of the "professional" answers in this tread, I can only conclude that it is a miracle that not more aircraft are stalling and falling out of the sky when they depart covered in "dry" snow, using "different" procedures and "different" regulations.

Getting away with it doesn't mean it's safe. I think there must be a lot of fair weather pilots out there (Miami Air; Lets taxi a bit closer to that jet blast so we can melt the snow off).

I know who I prefer to fly with. Those pilots who fear the weather.

Well done, LTD!

[kingair9]

Bactrack,
He won’t file any reports because he really doesn’t care. All he wants is to come on here and insult the 1,600 pilots who fly for that airline. This is the kind of person that would call BBC seconds after a disaster to let them know why he was right and the Iberia pilots were wrong. We have all met a person like him.


I am personally really sorry for "just" being a multi-engine, IFR-rated PRIVATE pilot and after this posting I will return to my usual attitude of keeping my mouth shut on professional subjects.

Yes, it could be doubted if the IB crew maybe took the "yes, you do" (excuse me if I use the wrong words but the meaning is more essential) in the wrong way. See, I am even giving the guys credit as I have not been there and can't judge what/how they heard it.

BUT: This is one of the worst statements that I have ever read here. Were you there? Even as the IB 340 driver? One has to wonder...

[discostu]

Never openly contradict another professional on an open frequency.
:eek: WHAT! Just sit back and watch as ###pax depart for their final flight!?!
It's this type of 3 monkeys attitude that CRM is supposed to prevent. Your responsibility, even as a fellow human being, does not end at your a/c door. If you see something you believe to be wrong, report it. Even if the other crew dismiss it as spurious, but you still have doubts, report it again.

Reminds me of a couple of years ago, was taxiing behind a 732 which had just pushed back when we noticed liquid leaking from the #2 engine. Upon reporting it the crew replied "it always does that". I again repeated to them my concerns & suggested they have someone look at it. Their F/O stuck his head out the window & 10 seconds later they requested return to stand. A/C was still there the following day.:uhoh:

Never take anything for granted.
The 'we've always done it that way' attitude will only lead to one place.

[old,not bold]

if we are to avoid fellow pilots being pressured by management in to taking off with the wings/fuselage as described.Speaking from the management side of the fence, for the last 25 years at least, I have great difficulty with the notion that anyone in management can conceivably, by way of stating a general policy or giving an instruction in a specific instance, pressure a pilot to do something wrong and life-threatening, and thereby risk his/her own life, the crew's lives and the passengers' lives in circumstances when without that pressure the pilot would do as he thought right.

EG, depart without de-icing if that were dangerous.

It is impossible that any real pressure/instruction/policy would not be documented. And if it is documented, any pilot I know would know exactly what to do about it.

I am very aware of the response I would have got if I had sought to "pressure" a pilot working for me in any way to do something the pilot knew he/she should not do, eg refuse de-icing when it should be done.

So I wonder how often "pressure from management" is used as an explanation, exoneration even, when the true story is something else.

I also wonder if commercial airline pilots ever really put their lives at risk knowingly, with or without management pressure to do that. I doubt it, and I don't really believe stories that say they do. But the real concern is in that word "knowingly", as training standards and experience requirements fall to the bean-counters' axes.

[Dani]

Well, we pilots all know that most of the time, you could easily go even with some snow or other contamination on the wings and you wouldn't crash. The keyword is "most of the time".

If they would have an engine failure, some windshears or any other unforseeable incident, "some snow" could easily aggravate the situation. That's why we do these calculations and do these de-icing procedures all the time.

Just because it worked this time doesn't give you the insurance that it will the next time.

It's not only playing with the lives of the passenger and crews on board, but also with all the people living under the departure route. I think it's unforgivable that airport authority doesn't intervene in such situations. Maybe it needs another crash until they will do.

Dani

[jurassicjockey]

I really tire of hearing the "it's dry snow, it'll blow off" spiel. What's underneath that dry snow. Without an inspection, you have no way of knowing. Happened at one carrier that I work at. A piece of ice under the dry snow came off near the wing root at rotation, directly into the rear mounted engines. Only took one out fortunately. It's a very simple concept. CLEAN WING

[Robeki]

Dani,
The airport authorities are not there to tell a pilot he needs to de-ice his aircraft. According to the author of this post, they asked the pilot, which is more than most controllers would even do. Most controllers have enough on their hands without having to worry about aircraft de-icing and MEL items.

Having flown for many years in that part of the world, I can clear up something. If a controller saw that the aircraft operated in a way which was reckless, he would have been forced to report such an occurrence to the FAA.

Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary. I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.

Iberia carries two crews on some long haul flights, thus the reason for having someone in the jump seat. Last time I checked, most companies do allow crew jump seats. At least 3 pilots made the decision to depart with the “SNOW” covered airplane. The odds of having 3 cowboys in the cockpit is highly unlikely.

I would have waved as well, it’s a nice gesture.

[Frank Duran]

Robeki
I could't agree with you more; I would say 'cowboys' were somewhere else but in IB cockpit.

.

[Shiny side down]

I'm intrigued.

We encourage cabin crew to speak up if they are concerned.
We equally welcome passengers speaking up, if they too are concerned, or even happen to notice something amiss.
After all, once it's been looked at (whatever the issue) fears or concerns can be put to rest with a rational explanation.

There have been a few reports where the Cabin Crew, and on an occasion the pax, were praised for doing just this.
And yet, here we have a trained professional pilot being criticised for speaking up.

Granted, the wording or tone may have been less than appropriate. But it is the intent and the message that is important, not the delivery. In this more educated/informed world, we should be able to put aside any personal irritations and look at the message for what it is.

As for the de-icing itself.
Surely it was the responsibility of the crew on board to take all practical steps to ensure the safety. I say practical and ensure deliberately. In this instance to de-ice I would have thought is obvious. It helps to ensure that if anything else happens, airframe icing will not be a degrading factor. As for the practical. The forecast was for snow. The airport is going to be resonably well prepared. Tower even expected it. An on time departure into the sea is a lot less appealing than a 20 minute delay.

As Dani pointed out, getting away with it this time does not make it acceptable. Suggestions that this was the right call this time, is based on the hindsight situation that nothing else happened. We don't plan for nothing to happen, we plan to ensure that if something does happen, it won't kill us.
If we don't consider these things important, then why bother with a Wet V1?

The cabin crew announcements often state that their primary purpose is the pax safety. It is also the flightcrew's. (sorry to state the obvious) Once passengers are onboard, all normal steps should be taken to ensure their safety (as well as our own). The company schedule and the profit on that trip should be secondary.
It smacks of press-on-itis. Something that we are constantly reminded to be wary of.

I can understand the view that it isn't the place of ATC to make the call. It is the flightcrew and a/c commander. It is expected that he/she will do so as part of their remit.

I can't see that it was the right decision, despite the fact that nothing happened.

[John Marsh]

we should be able to put aside any personal irritations and look at the message for what it is


Exactly. And I would also expect to find this ability in any flightcrew, of any carrier.

Safety first; any personal matters can be resolved afterwards.

[His dudeness]

Quote:
Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary. I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.


Wasn´t the Dryden Captain the most experienced guy in his airline? And the KLM/Teneriffe Captain THE most experienced 747 driver of KLM?

If I look at the dumb things I do after nearly 20 years of flying I doubt the value of a statement like the one above.

Many years ago, I took off in a KingAir 200 with loose snow on the stabilizer. I cleared off all the snow from the wings and empennage and it was all just loose stuff. Nether the less, some snow melted and refroose and bridged in front of the elevators. To cut a long story short, this was the first,only and last time I ever took off in a contiminated airplane. Thats what I learned from that takeoff, that would have see me crash if any additional problem would had developed.
If the A340 was covered in snow, they were just lucky to get away with it. The conditons were just so that they did. (always presuming that this story is true). Not beeing an Airbus nor a heavy aircraft pilot I just wonder how much you can really see and judge from the flightdeck. I´d think that they have ground crew to assist in this decision. But after the hoarfrost T/O accident of SAS and the Dryden accident I think it is clear that any amount of wing cont should raise concern.

[idol detent]

Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary

What on earth does 'experience' or 'salary' have to do with it?


I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.

Robeki have you ever done a CRM course? It is exactly that type of attitude that costs lives. I question everything. Everything. I owe it to my pax.



At least 3 pilots made the decision to depart with the “SNOW” covered airplane. The odds of having 3 cowboys in the cockpit is highly unlikely.

However many pilots there were, if we take LTD's description of events at face value then it would appear that there were indeed '3 cowboys' in that flight deck. Or a very steep Command Gradient.
I wonder what IB SOPs have to say about airframe contamination; and if the Commander had evidence (photo etc) submitted against him, I wonder what his response to the authorities would have been?

Some of the postings on this thread are truly bizzare, and if they are from pilots, I shudder at the thought....

Well done LTD for speaking up. It is our duty to do so.

ATB

id

[rockandroll1]

jurassic - thanks!! Of course noboby know what's beneath the "dry snow". Taking off with dry/wet/ANY snow on wings is just NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[Robeki]

This thread seems to be full of Monday night quarterbacks. None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.

What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.

Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?

If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.

If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.

Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.

[Shiny side down]

Robeki
I suggest you reread the first post, and the title. It does not say that the actions of this Captain/crew are indicative of ALL Iberian pilots.
As I read it, the thread is about an Iberian A340 crew, that seem to be cowboys.

However, your method of defending the indefensible simply makes it look worse.

It's simple.
1 crew, 1 aircraft, snow on the aircraft. A suggestion that they need deicing. They refused.

Ignore The Iberia bit.
Snow on an aircraft, icing conditions, apparently getting worse. Not deiced.

It doesn't make sense, no matter what level of experience, or salary scale.


Signed
A monday night quarterback, whatever that is.:ugh:

[Solar]

Not sure how relevant this is but I have just been through the North Sea "HUET" training and one of the additional things is Norwegion law pertaining to HSE. Basically it puts the onous on yourself if you see something that has the potential to cause an accident and you fail to either bring it to the attention of the person/people involved or revelant supervisor/authority.
Whether its a good thing or not to encourage the ambulance chasing bottom feeders I don't know but if it saves injuries or lives perhaps its worth it.
I admire LTD for his stance on safety. His diplomacy skills may need some fine tuning.

[CarbonBrake]

Hi everybody

The logo on the tail of this A340 is not an issue here. Those people were licenced airline pilots (I hope so...). However, according LTD, fact seems to be that this flight crew ( 2 or more, whatever) of an airliner failed in applying a proper risk management and put their passengers lifes at an unnecessary risk.
Wheather this was/is based on bad training, ignorance or lack of knowledge or a combination thereof will most probably never be answered.

Swept wing high speed aerodynamics and subsequently aircraft perfomance of modern airliners with supercritical airfoils requires a clean wing concept, and there is no yes but...
As said by many other posters here, no clean wing, no go, period.

Millions of dollars have been spent by scientists and engineers within NASA, the NRC in Canada and various other high caliber institutions worldwide to form a well documented and proven knowledge base of aerodynamic effects of contamination on supercritical airfoils and its effects on aircraft performance.


People died in the past and most probably will die in the future because of flight crew members who mistakenly think to know much better than all those engineers and scientist, just because they are THE PILOTS.

[Plastic Bug]

Just so I get this straight, we have a single British Airways (alleged) pilot reporting that he (or she) saw an Iberia Airlines aircraft depart without deicing.

I say alleged because as this is a public forum, we have no proof as to the veracity of the posters claims.

If this aircraft was so heavily laden with snow, where are the other witnesses?

I am seeing a feeding frenzy that is unbelievable! You are all ready to hang someone when you were NOT THERE! If, what if, could of, may have.... BULL!!

20 years ago, no self respecting pilot would EVER out another pilot in a public forum.

Now, the accused is guilty before departure. Why show up for work?

PB

[PBL]

This thread is really an eye-opener.

Nobody has remarked yet that "Reducing Dangers to Aircraft Flying in Icing Conditions" is one of the six "most wanted Transportation Safety improvements" of the U.S. NTSB.

Taking off with a contaminated wing is a no-brainer from an engineering point of view. If your wing is covered with snow, then you cannot assess the smoothness and efficiency of your airfoil. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot assess". That means you cannot tell if you are going to lift off normally, or belly flop after you get out of ground effect. Let me emphasise those words again: "cannot tell".

LTD observed a crew proceeding to take off with an airfoil that well could have been disastrously contaminated, as far as anybody, including the crew of that airplane, could tell.

So what do you think of that for risk management?

From my point of view, it is pretty poor, since it is a risk that could obviously be controlled. How big is the risk? Apparently, it depends on who you talk to. I guess if you talk to the pilots who did it, they would likely assess it as small. But how "small" a risk can tossing a coin be? If you talk to the NTSB, they will emphasise that anything other than a clean wing for take off is, for them, an unacceptable risk.

It is interesting to me that there seem to be a number of people here who are more interested in hierarchical protocols amongst airline pilots; the correct form of speech; the reputations of their friends (deserved or not). Well, they are welcome to be interested in that. But ice and snow doesn't have any way of respecting human politeness conventions. There is no question of "judgement" here: those pilots did not have the information to be able to judge. If frozen precipitant is sitting on your wing, then you are tossing a coin if you choose not to deice, no matter how many thousands of hours you may have.

I think it should also be pointed out that the argument "well, they managed to take off alright, so the decision not to deice was acceptable" is incorrect. The question here is about risk management, and there are some established principles of risk management that this action violated. To show this, let me first use an analogy. Say I close my eyes every time I come out of my street onto the main road on my bicycle, and try to judge whether there is traffic just by hearing. I could probably do it. Does that make my decision to close my eyes acceptable risk management? How good does the argument look that "he managed to emerge without getting hit, so his decision to close his eyes was acceptable".

My answer is that closing my eyes when exiting the side street is not appropriate risk management, because I have means easily available to me of reducing the risk much further, and I did not use those means.

This principle of risk management is an established principle of English law, known as ALARP. It is a requirement formulated by Lord Asquith in these terms: one has an obligation to reduce risks As Low As Reasonably Practicable. This formulation was emphasised by Lord Cullen in the Piper Alpha inquiry, as I understand it.

If you tried to take off with a contaminated wing in England and something happened (say you rejected TO and someone got injured), you could theoretically be prosecuted for violating ALARP. (I don't know whether it would *actually* happen, of course; that is, amongst other things, subject to the whim of the Crown Prosecution Service).

I propose to you that taking off in a heavy airplane with a full load in snow with a contaminated wing is not appropriate risk management either. The NTSB proposes that to you also, as does the TSB. As does the ALARP principle in English law. Those who agree with this proposal are in solid company.

If those pilots had been taking off from LHR, say, they would literally have been breaking the law, in that they were not fulfilling their obligations under ALARP.

PBL

[DingerX]

I love you guys, but there's a couple of a things you need to keep in mind. First, if you divert into Manchester, you're going to be photographed and posted to the internet. You might even get the YouTube treatment.
Second, if you are in Boston, all your radio traffic will be recorded and archived for posterity.
So if you come on here and discuss an event concerning KBOS RT, someone with a half-hour of spare time can dig it up.
The conversation in question can be heard following this method:
A. Go to: http://www.liveatc.net/
B. in the left hand bar, select "Listen to LiveATC Archives"
C. Select December 2, KBOS-Boston Delivery, 2300-2330Z
D. Click on Listen
E. Download the file, and scroll to 19:30, which is IB6166's first call for pushback.
The conversation begins a minute later, complete with LTD's dulcet "you do" at 21:30
At 22:40 IB 6166 switches to ground. Yes, you can listen to that as well. Before you do, LTD and crew express their concern at 24:00. Then swap tapes to ground, and follow the traffic from 23:00, when IB6166 is first cleared for pushback.
25:00 -- "British Airways advise that you may want to recheck your wings for deicing"
27:26 "IB6166 We have checked our wings, we don't need the ice, we are ready for push"
flightstats have IB6166 pushing back at 23:28Z. I didn't follow the tape any further, but those who are interested might.
So, from this:
LTD (and, I presume justinzider) communicated unambiguosly their concern.
What LTD and JI didn't hear:
The concern was communicated to the IB crew.
The IB crew took two and a half minutes, and called back, affirming that, after checking their wings, they did not need deicing.

Now back to you guys for criticism.

[Dani]

One other missunderstanding has to be clarified:

The CMD/PIC is of course responsable for his own airworthiness.

Tower is not allowed to intervene. But with authority I don't mean Tower, but the FAA/JAA/any other CAA. They have the power to call back the aircraft and inspect it, the crew or anything in it (except diplomatic mail).
The problem is that they are slow and only react after accidents. But this would have been the perfect case for them for a spot check.

Maybe next time, after an accident, until the press is tired of the story, then the routine starts again...

Dani

[despegue]

IF the IB A340 took of with contaminated wings, then this is indeed an incident caused by unprofessionality.
HOWEVER: We have here 7 pages of publicly accusing a company and their pilots for reckless behaviour without any proof except for one collegue who is not able to give us any photographic evidence.

I applaud LDT's action for giving potentialy vital information to the crew, however, the reaction afterwards by said collegue and most of the other cotributors does leave something to be desired.

LTD, may I suggest to contact the authorities/airline if you were that concerned and sure of your case. This needs true investigation and not gossip that might, and unfortunately probably will cause non-flightcrew (read public and press) to assume things that might damage all of us. 99% of flightcrew operating in the First World are professional, knowledgeable and very able aviators, the ones who are not need to be taken care of by official means.

It seems that there exist a blaming culture on PPRUNE. Let us all try and contribute on these forums as true officers and remain dignified, positive and react in an appropriate way.

[helen-damnation]

Anyone care to post the ATD and the metar for the flight in question?
Should give some answers :ugh:

[jezzbaldwin]

IMHO LTD did the right thing, both by making the call and by putting the thread on here. I have not listened to the tapes (not enough time), but experience tells me that US frequencies can be busy and a snappy call is the order of the day - it gets the message out loud and clear.

The fact that there was a further warning from a BA crew and ATC beggars belief that the Iberia crew remained so intent on scaling up the Air Florida Potomac accident - So nice that they had such a great wish to keep the accident investigators busy at this time of year.

I dont have to labour the point about snow and ice induced accidents - we (should) all know the stats.

I would therefore like to propose that this crew should have been called

"SUICIDALS" instead of cowboys.

As a footnote I would like to say that i'm sure there are many many good pilots in IB as with almost every company, but the media wont care about that at the crash site, all they will care about is the insignia on the fin.

[Dufo]

LightTwin driver wrote:
***
I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).

[TopBunk]

Robeki

This thread seems to be full of Monday night quarterbacks. None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.

What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point.

Does anyone think generalizing and calling 1,600 pilots cowboys is very professional?

If the author of this post was really interested in safety, he would have filed a report. It shows his lack of professionalism coming on this site and insulting 1,600 pilots with the title, even more so when we know the press reads the forum.

If this forum was not anonymous, we wouldn’t see all these senseless threads appearing.

Someone has to stand up for our fellow Iberians. Enough said.


Firstly, may I say you desire to defend your compatriots is commendable.

However, I doubt if I am alone in my concerns about your general attitude, and that the above quality is the only positive attribute you display.

You have closed mindset to the point of absolute danger to the flying public:

you refuse to be open to possibilities of mistakes
you defence is to blame others /other cultures (by citing other incidents)I have listened to the atc tapes mentioned above and would have to say that the BA crew did nothing wrong and indeed did all they could to point out the situation as they saw it.

Whether or not they should have de-identified the incident a bit on here is the only issue for me, but that is not what we are talking about.

What we are talking about is a closed mindset, not taking all information into account, the possible inability to admit to a mistake by reviewing the evidence and general good airmanship.

It seems to me that the crew in question, on that flight, on that night demonstrated a lack of airmanship that is worrying.

[TopBunk]

Dufo (good name ...sic)

I don't know of any airline of any size that permits you to take off with snow on upper wing surfaces-tell me if you know different.
***
Actually - but not regarding snow specifically - this is from our OM-A:
8.2.4.5 Necessity for de-icing
An aircraft has to be de-iced if:
• the ice coverage is thicker than 3 mm
• white frost or ice forms on the bottom of the wing in the fuel tank area during precipitation during
ground time
• presence of clear ice is observed
So yes, we ARE indeed ALLOWED to go with up to 3mm of ice (but not snow?).

Now that is really worrying:eek:

My ops manual says categorically that the aircraft must be clear of all forms of frost, ice, slush and snow before take off

except


thin hoar frost acceptable on fuselage (static vents must be clear)
frost up to 3mm on underside of wings in area of fuel tanks
ridging of ice under wing is not acceptable.Please tell me who you fly for.

[cwatters]

What would their recheck involve? If you are in an MD83 ready to push (eg doors closed?) is it possible to open the doors, hop out and go run a hand over a wing to see if the snow comes off easily in or would that check just involve a quick look from the door/window?

Edit: I mean an A340 not an MD83 !

[beamer]

DUFO

I won't ask for your airline but what aircraft does this refer too - I would like to avoid it during the winter months !

[Tjosan]

If your wings are covered with snow, how could you determine if you have clear ice present?

[whartonp]

This is very simple. Snow on the wing is BAD & WRONG. Dry snow, wet snow it doesn't matter what type of snow, its wrong. Whats under the snow? You cant know whats under the snow until you have carried out a tactile check and I do not believe that this IB crew, or any other A340 crew is likely to carry out a tactile check extent necessary to determine weather or not there is ice under the snow. Different parts of the wing will be at different temps and so what is under the snow will vary across the wing.
Will the snow blow off? Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. You don’t know and neither do I.

[Dream Land]

Didn't have the patience to read them all but have to say that if I call for pushback with an apparent safety related problem I sure hope someone like LTD is close by, I commend him for his effort. Like others have pointed out, it doesn't necessarily reflect on the entire airline.

[Super VC-10]

So, it has been established as fact that the incident did happen, and there is evidence available to support the claim made. Just because LTD hasn't said that he has filed a report doesn't necessarily meant that he hasn't done so. The FAA/NTSB may also be looking into this incident too. It is not beyond the realms of probability that their guys read these forums, is it?

[clearfinalsno1]

DingerX - good work with that post. Am I behind the times or is it surprising to others that Spanish is used in parts on these frequencies?

[idol detent]

Robeki wrote

This thread seems to be full of Monday night quarterbacks. None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.

What does experience have to do with it? Everything. What does salary have to do with it, not much, it was a simple comment. I don’t see many pilots earning what a commander with Iberia earns, and there is a reason for that. Extremely professional crews, thus the reason I give them the benefit of the doubt. Accident statistics prove my point

Sorry Robeki your posts are full of contradiction.

Experience does not stop you from making mistakes. Neither does a big salary. I make them all the time, but clean wings are a must. Just because they got away with it doesn't make it right.

I am fortunate enough to work for a company that probably pays me more than an IB pilot and I have ~20years/15,000hrs of experience from turboprops to 747s. That does not make me immune from mistakes but if it makes me a Monday night QB then so be it. However, I will always be glad of intervention from someone like LTD.

It seems that our (well intentioned) critcism of this particular IB crew has fallen on ears that don't want to listen and that is really rather sad for our profession.

[gatbusdriver]

Of course LTD was right, and he can park next to me anytime.

We have to remember that for all those judge, jury and executioners out there. We are basing this whole thread on what one pilot thought they saw. Now maybe LTD was right and they should have come back to de-ice. I find it hard to believe any crew would take off with contaminated surfaces, so maybe we are missing a piece of the puzzle here.

I would love to see a posting from one of the IB crew involved.


It is a shame that it is open season for naming and shaming. To name the airline, date and departure airfield on an anonymous forum is not on.

We take enogh crap from journos etc as it is.

[Nice flaps]

idol detent, very well said Sir.

I just can not comprehend that a highly experienced crew would disregard such an observation from a fellow professional. There is absolutely no place for pride in this kind of situation.

None of you ever make mistakes, obviously.

Yes we do, on a daily basis. This, however, is not a mistake. It is an act of great unprofessionalism that potentially endangered a great many lives.

Of course it's not right to brand a whole company as "cowboys" based on this one crew, and the identifying of flight numbers etc is questionable too. But I don't think that was LTD's intention in starting this thread. It was probably a mix of incredulity and horror that in this day and age there still exists a lack of understanding of the dangers of ANY contamination on the aircraft's surfaces.

Those on here defending the crew's actions need to grow up. This is not a point scoring exercise against IB pilots or anyone else. It is about a very serious flight safety issue that affects all of us, no matter what logo we have on our tail.

The likes of LTD can park next to me any time they like :ok:

[747flyby]

LTD if you would ever see me do the same thing you are more than welcome to call me and warn me. I think some of our good members on the forum have misunderstanded you completely.
As I read it you are not talking about 1600 cowboys in Iberia. You are talking about those cowboys on this flight. I also think in IB there is a problem about challenging the captain. I know how the atmosphere is. I used to work in spain and I also fly with good spanish people in my company and they have their own experience they share with us. However that some of those who write on this forum get realy upset and angry and taking things personaly. It seems like whoever this is was either a member of the crew on this flight or is maybe one of those misunderstood. There is a treatment called anger management. I hope that cristhmas has not been spoiled for this guy. LTD didnt mention any names nor flight numbers. There is a little padadox in the headline which can be understood in many ways. However its your choice how you want to understand this headline.

I wish you all a merry cristhmas and a happy new year.

[mumbo jumbo]

For those of you who have not bothered to listen to the ATC recordings, it is notable that everyone calling for start clearance was also de-icing. I don't think I heard one flight except the IB flight that didn't require de-icing and request pushback from the gate to allow it.

The clearance delivery person repeatedly asked the Iberia flight if they had "already de-iced". They also asked again, "do you need to de-ice?". Each time, the IB pilot said "negative". It seems that the controller had some concern about the lack of de-icing judging by the number of times he queried the IB flight.

The BA pilot then made a clear request to pass on the message to the IB crew that they had seen the top surface of their wing covered in snow and would ATC pass on their concerns, which they did on the ground frequency. The IB pilots had ample time and opportunity to check the condition of their wings and to de-ice. They chose not to when it was pointed out that they had "substantial" amounts of snow on their wing and it was quite obvious that everyone else was de-icing.

As has been pointed out by others, you just do not go with ANY snow on your wings because you do not know what lies underneath it. It does sound as though this IB crew were "cowboys". That does not imply that all IB pilots are, even though the original title of this thread implied so.

Hopefully, if this thread is brought to the attention of their managers, the pilots concerned will be reminded of the requirements to de-ice whenever there is any frozen deposit on the upper surfce of their wings. I'm pretty sure that the adverse publicity that this thread has caused them is in effect more expensive than the cost of the de-icing the pilot thought he was saving the company at the time.

[Aviator_IT]

KBOS 022254Z 22004KT 5SM -SN OVC025 M03/M11 A3024 RMK AO2 SNB35 SLP240 P0000 T10331111
http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/wx_radar/BOX/BOX-Dec-02-2007-2300Z-radar.jpg

[akerosid]

Given the seriousness of these allegations, have either of the above agencies made any inquiries or asked questions. Given the seriousness of the consequences of such an action by IB, I'd expect them to ask some questions about this report. Would the controller not have made a report in this instance, given his concern about the aircraft's operation?

[EDML]

Hi all,
have a look at this Transport Canada article on the Dryden accident
discussing exactly the things we are talking about in this thread:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/systemsafety/newsletters/tp185/1-04/538.htm

[Capt Fathom]

Given the seriousness of these allegations.....

But no one can prove anything!!! Therein lies the problem!

[FINpilot]

"mumbo jumbo"...Spot on!

Just listened the tapes my self. After IB crew says " we don´t need de-ice", someone is saying (British maybe?) "YOU DO"! Well done from him!!!

Here´s the tape -> http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php and take KBOS-Delivery-Dec-02-2007-2300Z.mp3, right after mid point...

[tablelover]

Indeed therein lies the problem. I dont think there has been any criticism of LTd's call to ATC advising his concern for the IB flight from anyone here. What has been criticised is the manner in which it has been placed here, and those trying to justify the IB's crew decision. (Later shot down as further 'evidence' is provided to assist the arguement)

As for comments regarding good CRM, dont just pick the bits that back up your point of view. Yes it was good CRM to point it out, no it was not good CRM to place the situation into this domain with such an emotive title. Now we are rowing between ourselves and missing the points. Was it wrong to dispatch? Based on the evidence here then yes it may have been. Has the event been correctly described? perhaps perhaps not. Yet a crew judged by their peers with only one side to the story put forth are labelled as cowboys, and issues of deicing dissolve into a mix of quarrels.

If you have safety concerns then have the courage of your convictions, voice them, raise them or report them if you believe this is warranted. Do not label a crew in such a derogatory way on a public forum with no safety role, without having all the facts, including the reasoning behind their decision. It is to say the least amateurish and has no benefit with regards flight safety.

[Robeki]

Despegue says: It seems that there exist a blaming culture on PPRUNE.
I say: Clearly. This is not the first occasion. Although I am not a Spaniard, I have seen enough topics on pprune that cross the line from being aviation related into being issues of nationality.

Idol detent says: I have ~20years/15,000hrs of experience from turboprops to 747s.
If you are trying to impress me, trust me, it’s not going to work.

I would have done EXACTLY what LTD did, advise the crew. Anything beyond that is unprofessional over the radio or on a forum. That’s what I have been trying to put across from my first post.

Once again, if LTD and the rest of you are really interested in the safety of Iberia’s operation on that day, file a report. It would be the sensible thing to do. The unprofessional and un-sensible thing to do is to come on a forum and start calling those three pilots cowboys. Very, very, unprofessional.

Tableover: EXTREMELY WELL SAID.

[PBL]

I don't understand where this is going.

First of all, people doubting any part of this story must have another agenda. There are plenty of witnesses to the incident, to the state of weather at the time, and the exchange is on tape. There is a clear acknowledgement from the crew of the aircraft that they were not going to deice, even though everyone else was. And there was repeated questioning of that decision. It's not a rumor. Who cares about "proof"? This isn't going to court.

Second, that a crew in those conditions, with snow on the wing, did not deice, is a serious and potentially fatal lapse of judgement.

Third, it seems the situation about contamination of wings with frozen precipitation is not understood by everyone in the airline pilot community (and some of the comments on this thread go to show it). I find this situation very, very hard to believe (especially after Dryden - let me also refer to Chapter 3 of Beyond Aviation Human Factors, by Maurino, Reason, Johnston and Lee if anyone hasn't read it already. BTW, the Foreword is by the Honorable Mr. Justice Moshansky himself) but it is apparently so. The message needs to get out, by every possible means. It particularly needs to get out to the particular crew concerned.

Anyone disagree? Anyone think that the crew should remain ignorant? Anyone think that they shouldn't know what other people think of their decision? Anyone think that they shouldn't know that even their defenders are suggesting it should have been reported if anyone thinks it was an issue? Anyone think that the airline doesn't have a safety issue with a couple of its employees who apparently don't understand basic aerodynamics? Anyone think this situation doesn't need to be rectified?

Sending messages to authorities and filing reports and so on is phooey. It is the people concerned who need to revise their ideas about wing contamination, and for the airline to check that all its people know. And then the matter is finished. What could be simpler and more effective than bringing it up on the world-famous PPRuNe?

PBL

[JB LFPN FLYER]

"mumbo jumbo"...Spot on!

Just listened the tapes my self. After IB crew says " we don´t need de-ice", someone is saying (British maybe?) "YOU DO"! Well done from him!!!

Here´s the tape -> http://www.liveatc.net/archive.php and take KBOS-Delivery-Dec-02-2007-2300Z.mp3, right after mid point...

Everything is between 20:36 and 24:25

[pigboat]

What was the OAT on the ground in BOS when the incident took place?

[Farrell]

OK.....I will admit first of all that I haven't read through all 100+ posts on this thread.
I understand from listening to the audio that the Iberia decided not to de-ice.

Playing devil's advocate here, and I know about "better safe than sorry" but....

Does the A340 have a de-ice advisory on the ECAM and if so, are there any airlines out there who's SOPs state that de-icing should only be carried out if this caution is displayed?

Just wondering if there was a tech or beancounter decision as to why the crew decided to proceed when all around them were de-icing.

How much does it cost at KBOS these days for a de-ice?

[everynowandthen]

Plastic Bug, in response to your question...

"If this aircraft was so heavily laden with snow, where are the other witnesses?"


I believe this is post no. 38 .....

"I was on a later BOS-LHR service and the Iberia situation was mentioned by our ground staff. All aircraft required de-icing last night. Virgin Aer Lingus and BA were fighting for the only available rig at the international terminal."

[falcon12]

Back in the '70's, a Britannia at max take weight tried to depart from Logan to the UK.
It was snowing and the a/c had been de-iced but between completion and take off, the runway was changed so by the time they were airborne, the horizontal surfaces were covered in snow again. The poor old Brit was never designed to cope with severe icing plus they then encountered wind shear. Only the Flight Enginneer, miraculously, survived the accident when they flew into rising ground. I lost many good friends that night.

Amongst other things I now sell aircraft de-icing equipment to airlines, and airports. I have also been trained on how to de-ice. Having also flight operating experience it's a no brainer that you should start with wings/tailplane clean. It doesn't matter if you have snow, snow/ ice or ice only on them, get rid of it. That way, assuming nothing else goes wrong, one take off will be followed by one landing and nobody killed.

However, the forgoing debate on de-ice or not to de-ice is stimulating. I only wish that everyone would grasp the risk if you dont. As I tell those I meet on the ground ''You only get one chance normally to get it right, if you dont de-ice or you do it badly, you will watch the accident happen''

[DK_FCI]

I don’t know what happened at KBOS, I wasn’t there.

But I know that nothing good ever comes out of a blame culture, and this seems to be a very bad example of a blame culture. Everyone pure and white, washing their hands at sink. Blame cultures only lead to the real reasons behind the incidents being hidden, by placing all the responsibility on the individual, without trying to understand why he acted like he did. People rarely deliberately make unsafe decisions, more often it’s the system that they are in that causes them to do so. What pressures were the crew subjected to, didn’t he know better and so on.

Read Sidney Dekker’s The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error – a very good book about how you should go about trying to understand why pilots did what they did.

He talks about getting into the tunnel with the “incident” crew, and trying to understand why the actions they took made sense to them at the time.
Once you understand why they did what they did, you are very close to understanding the real cause.

Does anyone here know why the Iberia crew felt it was the right thing to do?

Neither do I!

I see it like this this:

No one in their right mind would depart with snow on their wings – but they apparently did.

So there must have been some strong forces at play here, and we need to understand what they were, if we want to become better pilots.

Just calling them Cowboys – that is just so old school – and will do us no good, maybe with the exception of making us feel better than them, and we probably are'nt.:hmm:

[TopBunk]

Farrell wrote:Just wondering if there was a tech or beancounter decision as to why the crew decided to proceed when all around them were de-icing.

How much does it cost at KBOS these days for a de-ice?

... a lot less than a crash:rolleyes:

[Farrell]

Thanks buddy! :ok:

[barit1]

Two aircraft at the gate awaiting departure - why not a "buddy system" wherein each provides an advisory, to the best of their ability, on the condition of the other?

Seems to me to be better than ignorance (and arrogance...) :uhoh:

[Mach trim]

Ok heard the ATC tape and the wx thanks for the link, excellent to hear it and changed my view.

Was there a follow up by Boston ATC ground to the BA Captains concerns ?

Why not ?

I am listening to the ground control and have not heard any further mention of it on ground.

If there had been an incident/accident. This would be addressed as the controllers were clearly very busy with delays,wx,deicing and slots.

Now we are getting some more facts and the plot thickens. Still need more facts, though.

Could it happen to me ?

Yes but it would have had to be a really bad day ( stressed and fatigued ) to not listen to the warning signs and perhaps let my ego or time,fuel pressures get in the way. Maybe an argument with the wife.

As said I would have said " Thanks BA " then to clearance " Yeah lets go for a de-ice and an anti-ice.

It is not easy to say " yeah I made a mistake " and be open about it.

It is my belief that this is one of the most imortant aspects of Error management training.

As we know how theses errors can lead us to the next hole of Swisscheese.

[PBL]

DK FCI,

Whatever your thoughts on "blame culture", I am not sure Sidney would be so pleased to find his work cited as a reason why people with snow on their wings wouldn't deice in a snowstorm, when it was suggested to them many times and everybody else did. Could it be that you are misinterpreting?

PBL

[Data Dad]

Mach Trim wrote,

I am listening to the ground control and have not heard any further mention of it on ground.


from the LiveATC recording for Boston Ground:

23:25 IB6166 is told by Ground that British Airways advise that they (IB) may wish to check their wings for de-icing.

23:27.25 IB6166 tells ground that they have checked their wings and they don't need de-icing.

DD

[bluefalcon]

This is more of a who to believe situation clearly favoured by the conditions of weather at that moment.


If like LTD says forms of snow where clearly being built in the wing surface then very bad for the IB capt. But what if the IB capt did check their surfaces, you normally check the upper wing from inside the passenger cabin, and as they had also recently refuelled the warming up of the fuel gives a temperauture exchange that is also to consider. As LTD said; it started snowing at that time!


what to be believe now or not is if the snow didnt adhere to the surface and just melted down as it would normally do after you refuel or if there was clear deposits after just a short time of snowing. Snow doesnt build up in surfaces with temperatures over 3-4º and after refuelling I dont know what temperature you have but I do think is above that. Another story is if they refuelld long ago,, or it started snowing some time ago.


Nevrtheless safety is first and with the doubt always act in accordance, and having heard the link(very good one there) I dont see a lot of arrogance in the way of saying it, except that maybe he could have called the IB pilots attention in a more of a colleague way as we should all be, and tell him what hes seeing, after all you are never gonna get told off for that.

[45989]

Why dont all the flight simmers / armchair experts go home for once. It really is getting tedious reading this rubbish. Pprune is not what it used to be Danny!

[DK_FCI]

Whatever your thoughts on "blame culture", I am not sure Sidney would be so pleased to find his work cited as a reason why people with snow on their wings wouldn't deice in a snowstorm, when it was suggested to them many times and everybody else did. Could it be that you are misinterpreting?

PBL


Hi PBL

I don’t think I’m misinterpreting Sidney, but maybe you misunderstood me.

As I am not using Sidney Dekker to advocate flying with ice on the wings. I would never try to justify that.

All I tried to say was that rather than blaming the individual, try to get in the tunnel with them, and try to understand what factors were present that would have made them think it would be reasonable to depart whit snow on the wings.

Obviously it was a mistake to depart with snow on the wings – anyone here can see that. So that is not what is interesting to me.

What intrigues me is why they did it.

I just don’t believe in the old “Pilot Error” branding, that immediately exonerates the airline, manufacturer, authorities etc. where you end up firing the culprit, and missing the real problem. That way you don’t find the root causes of the incident.

I naively think that whenever something like this happens, the crew has become their own victims, and that they actually see some perverse logic in what they are doing.

What would make a Commander of an Iberia Heavy jet; depart with snow on the wings, when as you say it should be bloody obvious that it’s a very very bad idea, especially after being warned by a freindly neighbour aircraft?

[meaw]

Something similar happened to me a while ago.
The weather was somewhat similar as the one in BOS.I had done a walk around and seen the top of the wing from a step ladder.(Was a DC9)
Just a little light snow that was very easy to blow off and no ice underneath.
The captain came out and had a look.The de-icing coordinator came by and had a look at the wings and tail.
All three of us agreed de-ice was not required.Now I work for an airline where safety comes first and we felt no pressure to not de-ice or scared of causing a delay.Both of us are extremely safe and conservative pilots.
While boarding some pax mentionned to the in-charge the snow on the wings.
We explained to her that it was just a little light snow that wasn't adhearing,that both pilots and the de-icing coordinator had checked it out and determined de-icing not-required.
She came back to the cockpit 5 minutes later and told us that the back-end crew wanted to go to de-ice or they would walk!
So of course we went for a quick spray eventhough it was not required.I am sure that to this day those 4 FA's think that we were ''cowboys'' out to kill them.
I am not by any means a cowboy and some might say that I am wimpy when it comes to safety yet some guy might start a thread about Air Canada cowboys..
I just think that until we haer from the IB pilots involved we don't really know what happened and they might actually be very safety oriented guys.
On a last note I was in YVR the other night and waited 3 hours to de-ice.Lufthansa called to push...no de-ice required.Are they cowboys?No because who knows how long the acft was on the ground,did they land after the precip stopped, did the de-ice coordinator climb onto the wings and determine it was safe etc...

[idol detent]

Idol detent says: I have ~20years/15,000hrs of experience from turboprops to 747s.
If you are trying to impress me, trust me, it’s not going to work.

Impress you is the last thing I'm trying to achieve. I responded with my experience as you alleged that some people were acting like Monday night QuarterBacks and that experience somehow counted for something. It does not.

Robeki, please read what people are writing and stop being a wind-up merchant-it's becoming a bit tedious.

ATB

id

[PBL]

DK FCI,

thanks for the clarification.

I agree it may be important to understand why he did it, because that gives insight into how to avoid such mishaps in the future.

But one can also maybe achieve the same effect by discussing it at length on PPRuNe (complete with date, location and ID so that people can listen to the tapes!), where there appear also to be pilots who do not yet understand how dangerous any wing contamination is.

The goal is the same. Who is to say which is the better mechanism?

PBL

[Grunf]

For those of you unsure on how hard it is to do a visual and tactile inspection of wing icing here is a DOT/FAA/TC report on the topic (http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/tc06-21.pdf).

Those of us on the OEM side who did some analysis related to (potential) performance of the wing with contamination are genuinely shocked to see some pilots are still not de-icing, whatever the reason.

I can't emphasize more the need for it. I know it is boring to read all the reports from cert bodies et al. on the danger of contamination and yet there is always someone who is trying to find an explanation why it was necessary to fly with it.

Cheers

[MD11Engineer]

As ground engineer, I have had incidents in the past where the de-icing crew had done their work sloppily and the flight crew was actually happy that I informed them via headset about the fact. They assumed that de-icing was carried out properly, but the de-icing crew left lots of snow and ice on the wings and tail. and were ordered to come back to finish their job properly.

[calypso]

I do wonder Robeki if you realize the damage you do to your own argument?

By the way I have no ax to grind with either Iberia or Ba as neither does or has paid me or denied me anything. Just wondered if you are able to see your posts as others see them?

[bluefalcon]

Robeki was simply making a point out of what Muizemberg said, read his/her message first and youll understand what he means. Some people do make this a IB/BA conflict, atleast it looks as the ones that know a bit dont get into this matter, but I agree and support any defense from those people that use this thread to throw other stones into IB.

[easyprison]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6105074
The report on this accident should make interesting reading.....

[Rananim]

This is getting out of control which is a shame.If the IB crew deliberately took the risk and went with contamination,then they themselves know how lucky they were to get away with it and they will have learnt their lesson..We dont know just how much contamination was adhering to the flight control surfaces of the 340;most have assumed that there must have been significant build-up due to the fact that everyone else was de-icing and what the BA pilot said he saw.
What we do know is that the BA pilot went about it the wrong way."Yes you do" is way out of order for one professional pilot to say to another on an open frequency.Furthermore,to post it on a public forum with flight number and date is reprehensible.You can articulate your anger and/or disbelief without using specific information.The reason we're discussing this is to remind our colleagues just how important it is to de-ice if you dont have a clean wing.We didnt need to know it was IB.Instead we've got a free-for-all witch-hunt(and this is a powerful platform).And thats dangerous when the facts arent established beyond a reasonable doubt but based on hearsay and assumption.
When BA made their 3 engine record-breaking flight from LAX a while back,I dont recall any pilot saying on freq "Land the sucker".
IMHO,the only time you use an open freq to directly contradict another pilot is when you see a clear and present danger that presumably he hasnt seen.In this case,use any language you damn well please.And he'll thank you for it.But I still wouldnt post any identifying details on a public forum.
As an aside,if you saw a 737 pilot start his takeoff roll just after a 747 had lifted off(assume an ATC oversight),would you try and stop him?And would you then write about it on a public forum and give the airline,date and type and call him a cowboy?

[Joetom]

http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/041229.htm
.
Are you feeling Lucky ???:ugh:

[DingerX]

What we do know is that the BA pilot went about it the wrong way."Yes you do" is way out of order for one professional pilot to say to another on an open frequency.Furthermore,to post it on a public forum with flight number and date is reprehensible.You can articulate your anger and/or disbelief without using specific information.
Point of information:
1. Not that it matters, but regardless of what LTD said, on the recording only "you do" can be heard. Whether the Iberia crew understood the remark cannot be ascertained. They did, however, clearly understand and acknowledge later, specific queries about ice.
2. LTD did not post the flight number here. He did post enough information so that anyone willing to spend a few minutes could figure out which flight it was. (hint: Iberia only has five flights a week to BOS, and the last month of ATC recordings for BOS are available on the internet) I posted the flight number.
3. Presumably a moderator changed the title of the thread, because people were complaining that it was counterproductive, suggesting that the uniform worn by Iberia flight crew included a stetson, chaps, six-shooters and, barring the A340-300 folks, spurs.

Rananim raises an interesting point, however (already hinted at in the "Professional Courtesy" article). Criticism doesn't always come directly:

CD: 6166 heavy expect runway 15R for departure, have you already deiced?
IB: say again for 6166.
CD: Do you need to deice sir?
IB: negative
BA45: You do
CD: alright, eh, do you plan on deicing at the gate, or do you need to go somewhere?
IB: IB6166 we are ready for push
CD: Iberia 6166 Heavy go ahead
IB: Iberia 6166 Heavy is ready for pushback.
CD: Iberia 6166 Heavy, have you deiced?
IB: Negative, we don't need it.
CD: Okay. Monitor ground .9
IB: .9 thank you and goodbye

[Shiny side down]

Three or so years ago, I was jump-seating on a company flight.
There were delays involved, and then it started snowing.
The captain of the flight was a high time very experienced captain, generally well liked and respected. A very pleasant guy.
The F/O was a couple of thousand hours, slightly abrupt in his assertions, but regarded as a very capable and efficient pilot.

As it was now snowing, the f/o expressed a concern about deicing. The captain said no, there was no time, we were too late already. Most of the passengers were on board, and we would have to wait too long for a deicing truck.
A very heated discussion developed.

The snow fall became rain for a while, then back to snow which began to freeze on the aircraft.
The f/o was adamant that they would need to deice, and would not contemplate leaving until we had.

The captain expressed his opinion like this;
He was the captain. He is in charge. If he says we won't de-ice, we won't.

The f/o held his ground and we were both expecting to leave the aircraft instead, because it was blatantly in need of de-icing by this point, and unsafe.
If we had, the regime in that company was such that we would both have lost our jobs. But better than the alternative.

In frustration, the captain stormed off the aircraft, had a look around, and came back on board. Deicing was ordered, which took a further 30minutes or so to arrive and complete.


The point is, there are people who rely on their 'position' to achieve absolute obedience.
Some very experienced people display such a high level of arrogance, that their decisions can be extremely bad, and they simply cannot accept outside opinion.

[Ashling]

Posting in such a way that crews can be identified is unwise.

That said if your sitting there watching what you believe to be an accident unfold you need to say something.

In this case if the crew really felt that he needed de-iced they were right to intervene. I'd have gone further and made it very clear to ATC and the authorities what was occuring and that a report would follow.

If your sitting there looking at a situation thinking 300+ peoples lives are in grave danger could you live with yourself if you didn't say something and they subsequently crashed and died.

I'd rather do something and risk looking a plonker if I'm wrong than say nothing and end up complicit in a diasaster.

[blayser]

If Iberia does not have procedures in place that account for inclement weather, the entire airline needs to be grounded until that is taken care of. If they do, and the pilots chose to ignore them, they need to be fired. Then an investigation needs to determine if ignoring proper procedures was just a problem with these two pieces of sh.... or common at Iberia, especially as it relates to deicing. If ignoring procedures, basic aviation knowledge, and common sense is is typical for Iberia's pilots the airline should never be allowed into any country that cares for it's people. These types of mistakes kill people and there is not any excuse for it.

[despegue]

Blayser,

your post is highly unprofessional.
IB has very detailed winter-operation procedures, as do about all International Airlines, and training is done on winter-ops on regular basis, just like any other airline.
As said before, we are again playing the blame game, typical of PPRUNE and its know-all's.:=
may I suggest that you return to your Microsoft Flight Simulator?!:mad:

[AluminumStructure]

Slightly off-topic but in 2003 in a night-time KIAD blizzard, an Austrian A330 crew pushed back, clipped the tail of a United 777 while taxiing out but didn't stop until ramp tower relayed United's displeasure about their "hit and run" on one of their parked aircraft.:= The gash in the 777's elevator measured about half a meter.

After a long wait for a contract mechanic to come out and look Austrian's wing while they remained on the taxiway (no one else was departing), they decided to press onward but never came back to the gate for another de-icing spray - even though they sat there for a good 45 to an hour in moderate to heavy snow OR to write up the wing strike in the logbook.

The whole kicker to this was that one of United's ramp employee's was taking pictures of the ramp operation that night and caught the whole thing in pictures (which is handily stored on my hard drive).

United's IAD management sure was ticked off that they hit one of their airplanes and didn't return to the scene. I don't know what became of that incident. Probably diplomatic immunity or some such nonsense.;)

[DK_FCI]

your post is highly unprofessional.
IB has very detailed winter-operation procedures, as do about all International Airlines, and training is done on winter-ops on regular basis, just like any other airline.
As said before, we are again playing the blame game, typical of PPRUNE and its know-all's.:=
may I suggest that you return to your Microsoft Flight Simulator?!:mad:

Hi despegue

I agree:D

@blayser

So far no one here knows what really happened inside that Iberia cockpit. And until we do (Which will probably never happen) STFU with all those sweeping generalizations about the crew and Iberia as a whole.:mad:
Unless you can back it up with facts - real facts.

So far the only real fact I have seen here is the ATC tape, and to some extent LT D’s OP, but wat did he really see?. That tells us nothing about what information the crew was giver by other parties (Maintenance staff, deicing coordinators or whoever does the contamination check).:ugh:

Even Captain Morwood at Dryden was not individually at fault. He was put in a very bad position by Air Ontario, and under a great deal of stress and pressures he made a very bad decision, he should never have been put in that position in the first place.:*

[jacjetlag]

It would appear "El Capitan" has made an error in judgment. The FAR's in the US clearly state you may not take off with snow or ice adhering to the wing. To not mention it to him AND not report it is unconscienable. Endangering passengers , crew and innocent people on the ground is the furthest thing from professional. For another crew to stand by and say nothing is nearly criminal. If there had been a bad result and the Captain lived , he would have been charged in most countries with manslaughter or murder. There is no harm in de-icing , there is great potential for harm in not de-icing with snow on the wing.

[PBL]

Good point, jacjetlag. Let's nail this:


...........
(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section.

................

(2) Initial and annual recurrent ground training and testing for flight crewmembers and qualification for all other affected personnel (e.g., aircraft dispatchers, ground crews, contract personnel) concerning the specific requirements of the approved program and each person's responsibilities and duties under the approved program, specifically covering the following areas:
...............

(ii) Aircraft deicing/anti-icing procedures, including inspection and check procedures and responsibilities.

(iii) Communications procedures.

(iv) Aircraft surface contamination (i.e., adherence of frost, ice, or snow) and critical area identification, and how contamination adversely affects aircraft performance and flight characteristics.
...............


So (while I formally acknowledge those here that still wish to believe that his incident is a fairy story), this crew broke FAR 121.629.

I take it I don't need to cite the FAR that says that the only reason one may have to deviate from an FAR is a concern for the safety of the flight. I presume no one would want to argue that the crew had safety-of-flight reasons for not deicing.

So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL

[jacjetlag]

"So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PBL....I believe some Supervisory type will get wind of this at Iberia and the explaining will indeed have to be done before long. Word travels around the world surprisingly fast these days.

[toratoratora]

Who would you rather have next to you on stand-Fruitbat (so apt) or LTD?
If a fellow professional has seen fit to enlighten me as to something I can't see from the Flight Deck, then my professionalism dictates that I at least investigate further.

If there's any doubt-there is no doubt!

[Swedish Steve]

Remember that Iberia is a Spanish airline and FARs do not apply.
I work for an European airline and we are allowed to take off with frost on the fuselage and under the wings.
Also when you get that square metre of frost over the landing gear, I usually convince crews that 1 sq m of frost is a lot less hazard than 300 litres of sticky deicing fluid. And if someone tells me that it flows off at 80kts they have never sat behind the wing on take off.
Anyway the reason for posting is last week we had overnight snow here which froze in the morning. It took a deicing truck over 20 mins to remove from the aircraft. Then a deicing release inspector climbed up onto the wing and pronounced the B757 clear for departure. It was a clear morning with no precipitation. 2omins later the B757 reappeared. The cabin crew had inspected the wing and declared that it was not adequately deiced and the crew accepted their professional opinion (over the opinion of the full time deicing release man) and returned to the ramp and were deiced again.
What can we do? Perhaps I should tell the deicing team to climb up on the slippery wing with a mop and clean up the frothy deicing fluid residue!, or should we let the cabin crew release the aircraft?:ugh::ugh:

[jacjetlag]

Steve....when Iberia operates in the US , they are indeed subject to US FARs.

[spiralklad]

"...Originally Posted by 14 CFR 121, para 629: Operation in Icing Conditions
...........
(b) No person may take off an aircraft when frost, ice, or snow is adhering[/B] to the wings, control surfaces, propellers, engine inlets, or other critical surfaces of the aircraft or when the takeoff would not be in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section..."

I would like just to rise a question about the interpretation of the FAR.
You could read "...when frost, ice, or snow is adhering to the wings...".

Was the snow on the wings adhered?

[jacjetlag]

Every aircraft departing BOS that night was de-iced. But apparently this IB A-340 is immune to icing according to "El Capitan".

[DK_FCI]

So (while I formally acknowledge those here that still wish to believe that his incident is a fairy story), this crew broke FAR 121.629.

I take it I don't need to cite the FAR that says that the only reason one may have to deviate from an FAR is a concern for the safety of the flight. I presume no one would want to argue that the crew had safety-of-flight reasons for not deicing.

So, despegue and those like-minded, you have won yourselves the unenviable task of trying to explain how someone can reasonably break an FAR under these circumstances.

PBL

Hi again PBL

The reason should most certainly be found in the field of human factors, but as we STILL don’t really know anything about what really happened. So no one here is qualified to say exactly what human factors were at play.

Assuming that there was actually contamination on the aircraft – he ran a red light here – so no need in citing FAR’s and what not. We all know that you don’t take off with snow on the wings – even if there was no FAR/JAR about that.

I don’t know if your fairytale remark was aimed at me, but I guess it was.

All I am saying is don’t condemn the crew before you have all the facts – if you don’t think you need more facts – well then I must say that you have a very ancient approach to safety investigation. Only a minority here seem genuinely interested in finding the real causes. The rest are just an angry mob, ready to hang the pilots.

Remember that the first two people at a crash site are always the pilots, and no one would deliberately do anything to crash unless you are suicidal.

And on a slightly different note – saying “yes you do” is unclear and ineffective, I bet it would have been more effective to say something like “Iberia 6166 this is Speedbird 45 we are parked at your x o’clock position, we have a good view of your aircraft and we can see that your wing is covered by what seems to be snow” or something more precise than “Yes you do”

[fly123456]

Got the same story in Milan once.
Moderate snow storm, everybody was waiting for de-icing. (1h delay)
Then one El Al aircraft took off in front of us, didn't want to wait for de-ice.

If you remember Regional F-100 crash in Pau (France), you'd know how frost can affect CL and stall AoA...

[GearDown&Locked]

Two aircraft at the gate awaiting departure - why not a "buddy system" wherein each provides an advisory, to the best of their ability, on the condition of the other?
Seems to me to be better than ignorance (and arrogance...)

Agreed barit1 ! :D

I've read with interest all of the posts, and agree completely with the "better safe than sorry" mantra.

I want to play the devil's advocate game for a while too. So let me reverse the situation.

Let's say you've done the walkaround, checked the wings and they were ok, the ground staff also gave the ok, so you're good to go. But you're delayed by some event while snowing, your doors already closed.

-Would any of you pilots ask the crew on the next stand to check their wings? "hey XXX, how's our wings? Ya think we should de-ice compadre?" :E

GD&L:ok:


just did a lil revamp on the question... strangely it's getting ignored, I wonder why

[jacjetlag]

"Remember that the first two people at a crash site are always the pilots, and no one would deliberately do anything to crash unless you are suicidal."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So that would then beg the question about all of those nasty "non-deliberate" crashes. Complacency, impervious attiude, ignorance, fatigue, get-home syndrome...poor judgment. Lots more and in many combinations.

This has been a terrific thread in what it has revealed about professionalism and complacency. If we become so sensitive to any criticism we can no longer consider advice, God help us.

[DK_FCI]

So that would then beg the question about all of those nasty "non-deliberate" crashes. Complacency, impervious attiude, ignorance, fatigue, get-home syndrome...poor judgment. Lots more and in many combinations.


Hi jacjetlag

That is just my point, one or more of these things must have been at play here - we need to know which in order to undestand the real reasons for a crew to apparantly depart with snow on the wings.

So we actually agree:hmm: (I think)

[PBL]

jacjetlag,

I believe some Supervisory type will get wind of this at Iberia and the explaining will indeed have to be done before long.

That would be the best possible outcome.

Swedish Steve,
Remember that Iberia is a Spanish airline and FARs do not apply.

Good heavens, man, basics! Any aircraft operates anywhere under the regulations of the country in whose airspace it is operating.

DK FCI,

I don’t know if your fairytale remark was aimed at me, but I guess it was

No, it wasn't. I understand you think the incident happened as described, just that you want a "deeper" explanation. Am I right?

you have a very ancient approach to safety investigation

No, friend, thoroughly modern.

PBL

[DK_FCI]

Hi PBL

You mis quoted me there:p

All I am saying is don’t condemn the crew before you have all the facts – if you don’t think you need more facts – well then I must say that you have a very ancient approach to safety investigation.

The key words beeing "if" and "then"

:)

[mumbo jumbo]

And on a slightly different note – saying “yes you do” is unclear and ineffective, I bet it would have been more effective to say something like “Iberia 6166 this is Speedbird 45 we are parked at your x o’clock position, we have a good view of your aircraft and we can see that your wing is covered by what seems to be snow” or something more precise than “Yes you do”

Whilst agreed the the simple "yes you do!" comment was ineffective and probably not the best way to make their feelings known, the BA crew DID in fact inform the CLNC DEL controller of their concerns and they were then relayed to the IB crew on the GC freq. This is all audible, very clearly, on the tapes and DingerX has even transcribed them. The BA crew could not have made their point more clearly after the initial, knee jerk comment.

So, DK FCI, your point with that final comment is...?

[Ashling]

Then the BA crew did all they reasonably could in this instance. Maybe the only thing left is the MOR once they got back home.

IF the Iberia crew deliberately ignored the warnings and carried out no further checks and it can be proven they subsequently got airborne with a contaminated aircraft the Captain should lose his job and right to fly public transport aircraft ever again.

[HolidayPilot]

Ignore the facts. Here is the only thing you know.

You are at an airport and all the other departing aircraft are deicing. What do you do?

Yes, the heard could be wrong. But in this scenario is it worth the risk?

[IcePack]

Some of the new De-Icer/Anti-Icer leaves a coating of whitish. residue on the surfaces. Last year at LGW had to get some steps to prod it with my fingers as it looked as if a coating of slush had re-frozen. It hadn't it was just the properties of the fluid.
So as some posters say not as clear cut, but a good call by the BA crew. I hope others would do the same for me.:)

[Matt35]

About one year before the Potomac crash, I left Helsinki on the same aircraft type...very hairy 25 minutes and the aircraft was described by a ground engineer as being in 'a doomed posture' and a '120 degree flip roll'.

It had been de iced but take off was delayed and ice reformed...I tried to send the Skipper a bottle of special Scotch, but BA declined.

I wish there had been someone observant enough to give a warning to the flight crew that night.

Matt.

[Frank Duran]

I think it is about time to put the record strait.
1- A, let us acept, diligent british pilot (?) assumes a nearby aircraft needs to be de-iced. Theirs asumption, of course, ignores and disregards any of the pre clearance checks by said aircraft own crew and Company ground staff.
2- Our diligent british pilot 'advices' aircraft pilot or whoever that 'he thinks' they need de-icing. Aircraft crew acknowledges the 'advise' and replies that they 'do not need' de-icing which should imply (of course not for our wise and diligent british pilot) that they have made all necesary checks, they are aware of the situation as far as ice is concerned and his aircraft is ready and safe. De-icing when not needed is as bad as no de-icing when needed.
3- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that assumption by our diligent british pilot was wrong. Aircraft departed as expected, clean and safe.
4- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that clearance checks by IB crew and ground staff were correct and crew decission that de-ice was not necessary, was right.
5- You, Mr.Diligent Pilot, can present your fairytale as you like; this is, anyway, (rumours, rumours) the right place for it.
6- For those of you more fond of rumours than facts, fair enough. Your turn.
7- And, finally, let me put it loud and clear: safety first, safety first, safety first; but safaty is good judgements, wise decissions, not redymade bigmouth declarations or non sense assumptions.

By the way, ¿any word from Light Twin Driver regarding those british cowboys (let me borrow you 'fair' word) riding that big horse across so many miles and so many souls on board, on 3 engines?.

And Merry Christmast for all.

[DIRRIK]

3- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that assumption by our diligent british pilot was wrong. Aircraft departed as expected, clean and safe.
4- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that clearance checks by IB crew and ground staff were correct and crew decission that de-ice was not necessary, was right.

who s making assumptions now? :ugh::ugh:

[SR71]

Frank Duran,
PBL has already addressed why your curious logic is at fault. Good and lucky are two different things.
I don't know much about anything, but I do have a PhD in aerodynamics.
Most pilots don't like being told something because it reinforces how often (inspite of what we like to think) that our decision making is sub-optimal. It is not that our decisions are "bad" per se, but they could often have been/be better.
In the arena of contaminated performance, the engineers/scientists (who generally tend to be far more intellectually capable than us pilots) at NASA, NRC, FAA, NTSB really do know best.
How different does a supercritical wing look from a non-supercritical wing?
Any of you spot the difference with the naked eye?
And yet how much additional performance can you extract from it?
I don't even like the idea of "allowed" contaminant on the underside of the wing, but then again, I'm just an ex-aerodynamicist cum pilot who happens to be on PPrune.
:ok:

[reportreaching]

Typical point of wiew of a part of the spanish society.the truth is our side and itllbe forever.
Our profesionalism is not our best hallmark.
Ive been working in aviation for more than 35 years and unfortunately that the way it is.

[jurassicjockey]

3- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that assumption by our diligent british pilot was wrong. Aircraft departed as expected, clean and safe.
4- FACTS, FACTS. Facts had proven that clearance checks by IB crew and ground staff were correct and crew decission that de-ice was not necessary, was right.Wow, I've read some incredibly uninformed posts on this thread, but that really trumps them all. So if I'm impaired, and show up for work, but I don't kill myself on the first leg, then I made the right decision???? Your logic is incredibly naive to say the least. Based on your country of origin, I think that perhaps you're a bit too close to this to be objective, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but wow, that was one of the most incredible things that I've read all day.

[Empty Cruise]

Why are so many people eager to jump in to defend the IB crew?
Someone saw deposits on their wings. Now, no matter how much you think that you don't need de-ice, when someone tells you you've got deposits, the cat is out of the bag.
Then you get your aircraft de-iced, end of story.
With actual conditions indicating sub-zero temperatures and -SN, you need anti-ice application, no matter wether you think you have a clean aircraft or not. IB are an EASA-approved operator, and I challenge anyone to bring forward evidence that EASA regulations allow you to depart in those conditions without an anti-ice application.
The deposits on the wing may have been there (as sen by LTD) or they may not. This does not really matter one iota.
What matters is the prevailing WX conditions.
They should have anti-iced. They :mad: up and didn't. Accept it and move on. It does Spanish avaition no credit when 96% of the people defending the IB crew are Spanish. That crew :mad: up := - end of story.
Empty

[GearDown&Locked]

That crew :mad: up - end of story.

You're right, they did.
But there's a catch emerging from this thread. You'll see Pprune used as a weapon more often in the future, instead of the proper channels, and it can affect any of you.
So, next time you see a crew acting like these cowboys, just say: "Yes YOU DO! and you better de-ice or I'll drag yer arse through Pprune big-time" :hmm:

[lomapaseo]

So, next time you see a crew acting like these cowboys, just say: "Yes YOU DO! and you better de-ice or I'll drag yer arse through Pprune big-time"

discussion and debate is one thing, but intention to cause harm in a careless fashion is sure to cause big time problems for you and this board.

[despegue]

I-FORD,

You don't get it, LTD was a ... British National and a BA Captain.
So aways right then on PPRUNE.

As said again people, if this IB crew did take-off contaminated this was a grave error, and we all agree I hope that LTD's reaction to something he noticed on it's neigbour aircraft was very commendable and proof of airmanship.
However, unless we have HARD FACTS here, and unfortunately, only images can give us this, we are NOT to blame extreme unprofessionality to the Iberia flight-crew. This whole thread is due to 1 eye observation. NOT MORE.

IN FACT: THe IB crew did in NEVER say that they didn't de-ice previously, they merely said that they did not require any de-ice before pushback.

It is a shame that we do not have any images, this would make this thread a professional one compared with the tabloid gossip it is now.

And I am not Spanish.

[DK_FCI]

Whilst agreed the the simple "yes you do!" comment was ineffective and probably not the best way to make their feelings known, the BA crew DID in fact inform the CLNC DEL controller of their concerns and they were then relayed to the IB crew on the GC freq. This is all audible, very clearly, on the tapes and DingerX has even transcribed them. The BA crew could not have made their point more clearly after the initial, knee jerk comment.

So, DK FCI, your point with that final comment is...?

Hi mumbo jumbo

Quite honestly I did not hear or read the final attempt by BA 45 to pass on the message to Iberia. My bad.:O

Sorry LT D – I missed that part

A Good Job is in order to LT D:D

[calypso]

I do wonder if some of the IB crew may not have posted here already. In any case I think is a fair asumption to make that the A340 did need deicing. The holdover time for an aircraft deiced with type I fluid with snow/snow grains and a temperature of -3 degrees (we know that as fact as it was reported in the ATIS) is 0:06 to 0:11. What is then the holdover time for a non deiced aircraft. It is also a reasonable asumption that they did not deice as when they where asked they said "we do not need deicing" several times. I think is reasonable to think they would have said "we have already deiced". Defending the indefensible only does further damage by some people.

The fact that mentioning names, flight numbers, etc is not useful is proven by the mob mentality and the emotional reponses that this tread has generated. Had the name of the airline been omited we might have got most of the useful discussion without any of the drum beating.

[M.Mouse]

By the way, ¿any word from Light Twin Driver regarding those british cowboys (let me borrow you 'fair' word) riding that big horse across so many miles and so many souls on board, on 3 engines?.

Analysed to death both here and, more importantly, officially by both the FAA and the CAA. BA continuation policy has not changed and nobody was reprimanded or prosecuted.

Back to the thread. What has become abundantly clear is that, in the future, there will be further crashes due to airframes contaminated with ice and snow deposits. I just wish we could know the flight numbers of the defenders of the indefensible here so that we have the option of not risking our lives alongside them.

It is not difficult to determine of a wing has ice or snow on it is it? And if it is in doubt then de-ice anyway. I do and have done.

[DIRRIK]

Don't Think Twice........ De-ice !!!

[DCS99]

and heard every other aircraft de-ice, surely the one remaining question is:

Is Frank Duran is a commercial pilot or a wind-up merchant?

To imply as you did Sir, that the BA crew are the real cowboys sticks in my throat.

[A Passenger]

As a reasonably well informed member of the SLF community and a frequent reader of PPRUNE this particular thread has prompted me to join in for the first time. (My first post and, sorry, it’s a long one)

Let me explain why:

I have been shocked by the complacent, reckless and unprofessional attitude displayed by some on this thread regarding ice/snow on the wing. And judging by some comments here it seems that these events and this attitude are not isolated to one or two of the aviation community.

There is simply no excuse for not de-icing under any circumstances.

I recommend reading or re-reading the NTSB Advisory that was posted earlier

ALERT TO PILOTS: WING UPPER SURFACE ICE ACCUMULATION
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/2004/041229.htm

There have been far too many incidents where crew felt that they “could get away with it” and didn’t.

As such I must state my position being an “informed SLF” that when traveling during icy ground conditions I personally inspect the aircraft as best I can do as a passenger and if I see snow or ice on the wing and fail in getting/seeing appropriate action, de-icing, being taken I will remove myself from the aircraft (even if it has left the gate I will insist) with all the disruption that causes. Plus I will make an official complaint/report on the incident.

I very much sympathise with flight crews regarding the commercial pressures imposed by airline/airport management but as is well known these problems are not just of commercial pressures (though they are significant) – crew psychology plays its part. ( the disastrous incident at Washington is a sobering example of this)

An ego that thinks it can get past the laws of physics is a dangerous colleague and very much the cowboy. Though tarring an entire organisation with the same brush when psychological issues and stupidity know no borders is not very constructive unless you focus such criticism on all organisations that allow such incidents to happen.

If you see any incident like this you must report it bearing in mind that the crew might be unaware of the problem(and might be a thankful fair-weather pilot) and the hundred or so passengers, who might soon end up dead, almost certainly totally unaware.

As was said earlier “It’s better to be twenty minutes late than twenty years too early”.

So de-ice your aircraft.

Regards
A Passenger

[Grunf]

It would be nice if someone who flies for IB (or who did) can give us a clue on their SOP regarding de-icing.

By the way, I didn't know you can do a check of the wings in two minutes (besides checking through the window). No bias here I am neither British nor Spanish;)

ISsit so hard to assume an error?! I do not understand on what ground one defends no de-icing decision?! Even if we ignore the LTD's statement we have 2 facts:

1) Weather at the specified time
2) Audio tapes

It would be easy for any regulatory authority to investigate that. As for the picture as a source if info, come on! The one suggesting that would be the first one to say it was doctored!

I guess for some here, crew's "feeling" wherever they fly is better then regulation, right:ugh:

As for capability of someone inspecting the de-iced wing here's an article on that (http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/tc06-21.pdf).

[yamaha]

Public executions, isn't that something that was stamped out quite a few years back?

Or perhaps I'm getting confused with a kangaroo court!

[despegue]

A Passenger,

With all respect, but please note that that this is a Professional Pilots website.
I have seen no post here that promotes flying with ice/snow accumulation.

Despegue

[M.Mouse]

Then try re-reading this thread from the start because that is just what has been implied by some.

And despite being a current commercial pilot with some years experience I welcome informed opinion from those such as the passenger above. This forum is open to all despite the name and I for one am not so arrogant as to dismiss his opinion.

[testpanel]

I´ve seen ANS (a feeder for IB) take-off(with their CRJ-200´s) a lot of times out of Badajoz early morning with early-morning-frost all over the baby, without de-icing.....You may blame the spanish culture, but there haven´t been much incident/accidents.

And no, I don´t defend the spanish culture although I love the way they live their lifes!

[Mach trim]

There's the Spanish forum called Pilotos de Iberia
www.pilotosdeiberia.com

Perhaps one of the Spanish guys could post a link there in Spanish to this thread to keep the Iberia guys in the loop and could get more facts.

Interesting how experience and attitudes can get in the way and be dangerous.
Not referring to this crew but generally.

" It will be alright I have done it before and had no problems many times, there son. "

[testpanel]

www.extracrew.com (http://www.extracrew.com) is a much better spanish site, and quess what?
They already know, from pprune!

[DK_FCI]

I´ve seen ANS (a feeder for IB) take-off(with their CRJ-200´s) a lot of times out of Badajoz early morning with early-morning-frost all over the baby, without de-icing.....You may blame the spanish culture, but there haven´t been much incident/accidents.

Thats just crazy:ugh:

There is probably not many aircraft more susceptible to ice than that high wing-loading non-slatted CRJ200

It seems that non-slatted jets get in trouble with ice/snow easier than their slatted big brothers. I guess that makes aerodynamic sense.

I can remember at least two F28 crashes, a C604 and a CRJ200. But I can’t really recall any with slatted jets.

[Grunf]

Air Nostrum pilots, in informal conversations, confirmed to Bombardier personnel (over few beers) that they do not feel a need for de-icing at the Peninsula and in the vicinity.

Topic was raised during one of their training/update sessions with Bombardier staff. They were advised to correct this approach for obvious reasons (best and worst example, at the same time, the CL-604 loss in Birmingham, UK on January 2002.

It looked as an eye opener, for them. I guess maybe MFS will have more stories
of that kind, if he follows this thread.

Please never fly with (suspected) icing on wings of CL models. NEVER!!

[Bigmouth]

You may blame the spanish culture, but there haven´t been much incident/accidents.
Well, no sh#t. That's because they haven't lost one yet at V1. The day they do you'll read about it in the news.

[Union Jack]

www.pilotosdeiberia.com (http://www.pilotosdeiberia.com/)

Perhaps one of the Spanish guys could post a link there in Spanish to this thread to keep the Iberia guys in the loop and could get more facts.

Interestingly enough, there is a deafening silence in the relevant thread in our own Spanish Forum entitled (and I quote!:)) "iberia cowboy" - only three posts in total, all dated 3 Dec and including the one pointing to this thread.

Jack

PS Perhaps Frank Duran could be even more frank ......

[jacjetlag]

They're in denial...

[Huck]

(best and worst example, at the same time, the CL-604 loss in Birmingham, UK on January 2002.


Here's another - killed the son of Dick Ebersol:


Montrose Challenger crash. (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20041203X01919&key=1)

[Cardinal]

Also Continental in Denver, a non-slatted DC-9.

[DK_FCI]

Also Continental in Denver, a non-slatted DC-9.

The Continental jet, carrying 82 people on a flight to Boise, Idaho, had just taken off in a heavy snowstorm Sunday afternoon when the wings were reported to have rocked back and forth. One wing was ripped away, the plane was tossed on its back and slid to a halt in three main pieces about 2,500 feet from the end of the 10,000-foot runway. #27 People Killed Although more than a dozen passengers walked away from the crash with only minor injuries, 27 people, including the two pilots, were killed, and 10 of the survivors were reported in critical condition yesterday afternoon.


Quote: The New York Times

[PantLoad]

Sorry gents,

This IS NOT THE CAPTAIN'S CALL (whether or not to be de-iced / anti-iced with snow/ice on the aircraft's lift-producing and control surfaces).

We have:

1. Aircraft certification criteria (The aircraft is not certified by the manufacturer to take off like this.)

2. Regulatory constraints (I don't know about Spain, but in the U.S., this is illegal as XXXX.)

3. Company SOP. (I've never worked for a company that had in its manuals permission to take off like that.)


The only time a captain's decision comes into play is when, FIRST, all three of the above are satisfied AND STILL the captain is not satisfied that things are safe. In other words, the captain has the authority to say 'No' despite the fact that 'all the boxes are checked'...but hasn't the authority to say 'yes' when one or more of the above authorities say 'No'.

Fly safe,

PantLoad

[tallsandwich]

LightTwin Driver - I'm glad people like you exist. It was suggested you should not name and shame the airline - yes you should.

So much effort and technology goes into making flight safe, yet macho actions such as the ones described here waste that effort. I am glad that my ability to choose who I fly with (and in which aircraft types I use) is considerably enhanced by free and open feedback on this forum.

All pax have the right to know which operators do stupid things, if only to embarass them into corrective action or to ensure that potenitally dangerous actions are questioned. This transparancy is desparately needed.

The quote from the NTSB guy said it all.

So thank you LTD from every pax who will ever fly on a plane by a pilot that has read this thread and has learnt. That's a lot of people....they don't care you used a strong word like cowboy, they just don't want to die from a macho act - which is what it was - and unfortunately there is sometimes a bit of a tendency to be macho in the pilot world.

[Flap62]

Pantload,

Good call.

There are WAY to many people on here with an over inflated impression of the captain's importance. It's not his aircraft, he simply assumes responsibility for its safety and operation within all applicable laws, regulations and procedures. Because he makes a call does not mean it cannot or should not be questioned either at the time or retrospectively.

[EGHH]

...they are aware of the situation as far as ice is concerned and his aircraft is ready and safe. De-icing when not needed is as bad as no de-icing when needed.


Please can you explain to me Mr Duran how on earth can this be true?

[despegue]

Actually, in that point, Mr. Duran has a point, although not completely accurate.

Deicing and anti-icing fluid is a somewhat viscose fluid that also decreases the effectiveness of the supercritical wing, although in a FAR LESS way than ice/snow contamination. Especially Type2 and 4 are quite viscose, but nowadays less used in Western Europe it seems.

What I would like to see is a recurrent yearly class on winter-ops, not just a meager CBT session of an hour at home, but a real classroom style day-long briefing where all aspects of winter-ops. are being repeated and where there is room for discussion.
In my opinion, at least as necessary as yearly CRM courses.

[bullshot]

I agree with the above post despique

Anti-icing fluid is very viscose - a couple of years age I was positioning on a BA 737 that I had watched being de-iced just before taxi-out. I had a window seat just behind the trailing edge and I watched very carefully - fluid was streaming off the wing in large quantities during the initial climbout - just as I expected. I was quite surprised though, to see fluid streams still departing the trailing edge after we had levelled off at TOC.

Last year I departed a Central European Airfield after being de-iced. After landing in the UK some 2hrs later there was still fluid dripping off the wings! I must say it surprised me.

Some years ago, I was undertaking the 'tech' part of an FAA type rating; after at least 2 hrs of continuous questions from the examiner, he asked me "what is the best way to de-ice the airplane?". I thought he was testing my knowledge of various fluid types and was uncertain what to answer - type 2 or 4 (but don't they use type 1 in the USA) etc. After a while he broke the silence with "Have the Airplane towed into a heated hangar". Obvious really and I felt rather silly.

BS

[PBL]

he asked me "what is the best way to de-ice the airplane?"............"Have the Airplane towed into a heated hangar". Obvious really and I felt rather silly.

And how long do you have to leave it there for the fuel and wings to heat up enough that stuff is not going to refreeze on it when you tow it back outside? Hint: the specific heat of fuel and alu is quite high, and that of air is quite low.

I was in Tahoe once with an Archer in winter, after a moderately warm day, and got frost. I went into the FBO for a deice, and was introduced to a somewhat cocky mechanic who suggested he would deal with it quickly, and came out with an engine heater. I thought "this is going to be an educational experience that he seems to need". He blew it all away, said "there you are" and went back inside. I waited some, oh, three minutes, went and fetched him and asked him what he was going to do next. Then he did it properly. If I'd been the FBO, I would have had a serious scare about my insurance policy.

PBL

[slip and turn]

This thread is a real eye-opener.

What it shows is that as a group, professional pilots are severely devoid of full scientific understanding of things that contaminate and degrade the thing that they need most - the wing.

It is also clear that even when the group does exhibit some understanding of the problem, that there is very little understanding of how to control rectification of it because of casual delegation of responsibility to people who squirt goodness knows what with varying degrees of diligence comprehension or communicative ability, coupled with a reluctance to don bad weather gear and actually get out, sometimes more than once, to get up a ladder or up in a hydraulic basket to make a direct observation-based decision.

Seems to me there's a lot of guessing that it'll be alright on the night based on the fact that it was ok last time.

I'm with despegue on the need for annual re-training (and I'd add note-swapping) on this - with ATC, airport ground ops management (the fluid purchasers/sellers) and the deicing team in the same classroom as the pilots. From what I have seen, there is far too much "going through the motions" and far too little understanding.

Going through the motions is better than not (so long as the fluid is to spec and applied properly), but I can tell you, because I have watched it do so, that some deicing fluid left on the airframe freezes at high altitude and we can only guess what that might do to supercritical wing performance. I have seen blueish types applied in Europe oozing from RJ wing orifices down the side of the fuselage two hours later on the apron in the UK. Where does it go next? Does it matter? Probably not now, but what was this stuff and when and where did all the rest go before it dissipated?

To my knowledge, no book documents the cause or the course of it once it's out of the nozzle, and I am not entirely sure that the book that documents it after it leaves the tanker is always kept to a fine standard.

PS I very much agree with LTD's style of bringing the original matter to the attention of his neighbours on the ramp and the community at large. To those that say you don't need to name and shame I say "You do".

[Re-Heat]

Everyone, please remember the most important part. We are talking about a highly experience crew who earns a very nice salary. I don’t question for one minute their decision to depart.
Posts such as this and Frank Duran's come back to the point about CRM - anyone in the loop is able to raise valid concerns that should be acted upon if there is any doubt - preventing incidents.

The aforequoted post demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of such, and while I doubt that Iberia have a culture that disregards CRM, it is apparant that for a crew to disregard the opinion of another professional who had a better view of their wings than them, is tanatmount to inviting disaster.

It remains a pity that CRM lessons appear only to be learned through disaster rather than potential "near disasters" that could have occurred...

[yamaha]

So where are we with the verdict?

Do we name and shame or do we behave in a more professional manner?

[andrijander]

nice try...if only the ppl posting there had anything to do with the real thing...and btw possibly the "silence" in this forums is because of the small spanish population of this site.


DISCLAIMER: I'm in neither side of the debate at this point, as I do not have the knowledge to get in it, just wanted to get some of the posts in touch with reality...

Also a note of advice to the topic starter, be careful with how you raise flags, it may come back right at you if you name too much -being in the states you'll be more aware of what and why you may be sued for-. Not a threat at all; myself have been once told off for posting names in the net.

A.

[Union Jack]

To those that say you don't need to name and shame I say "You do".

Curiously enough, albeit in a different context, "You do" is the precise expression which LTD used to start the whole (snow) ball rolling ....

Jack

PS I'm with LTD

[sleggy]

shocking, the pilots had numerous warnings from atc yet the PIC choose to ignore this and take off anyway. He shouldn't be allowed to fly passengers:*

[joehunt]

andrijander (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=57825)

An interesting post. Talk about CTA!!

I would say let the carrier concerned take legal proceedings, if what LTD wrote is wrong (which I very much doubt).

The silence from the Iberian peninsula is deafening!!

[Piltdown Man]

No doubt in the ensuing "accident" report the blame would be put on other parties, by the registry authority.

In this case, I think not. LightTwinDriver cut this one off at the knees. You can't stuff up after his comments are on the tape. He did the right thing. If I forget something, I'm really pleased if and when it's pointed out. No matter what it is.

PM

[flown-it]

COMPLACENCY KILLS:ugh:
We've all done it at one time or another...freezing cold, biting wind, pi$$ing with rain, torch/flashlight going dim....any one of these and we do the walk round with just a little less attention than normal. Why? We're all human and we've done this so many times we know what we're doing!
Wrong!
That's complacency and that's eventually going to hurt you. It didn't hurt these guys BUT.... they were lucky.
Those posters who think the crew did OK better examine their modus operandi. Sure as s$$t they will bend something if they don't change.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

It looked as an eye opener, for them. I guess maybe MFS will have more stories of that kind, if he follows this thread.

Please never fly with (suspected) icing on wings of CL models. NEVER!!

All I can do is echo that last statement, in spades. For any aircraft, in fact - look at the approach speed that your flight manual recommends for anti-ice system failure. On the CRJ it's VREF+30. Think about what would happen if you were 30 knots slow on takeoff - i.e. V2-30. That is what you are playing with if you neglect the clean wing philosophy.

De-icing when not needed is as bad as no de-icing when needed.

Nonsense, pure and simple. To continue the CRJ example, the effect of de-icing or anti-icing fluid on the scheduled speeds is precisely zero. On the dash 8s I believe it's a five knot adder. The aircraft is certified/approved for the use of the fluids - which means we know what it does and we've given procedures that work with it present. We also know what ice and snow CAn do - see the 30 knot adder mentioned above.

I would happily fly on a CRJ (or any other aircraft) that had applied "unnecessary" anti-ice fluid, even if I were a bit perplexed as to why they'd done so. I'd be walking towards the exit if I suspected the aircraft were about to try to takeoff with ice or snow on the wing. And no, I wouldn't care if the pilot thought it was "safe".

[Danny]

Something that was pointed out to me was the nature of the posts from people from 'Latin' backgrounds. Now, I'm no CRM expert but the person who highlighted the interesting fact to me, is, and I value his perspective. The defensive nature of some of the responses, together with their apparent macho pride being hurt, shows us that there are still some cultures, even here in the west, that have not yet solved the problems associated with constructive criticism. Considering that they involve safety critical issues is even more alarming.

Aside from the point about whether it is right or wrong to have highlighted the particular flight in question, a valuable discussion has taken place which raises the awareness for those of us who do fly these aircraft at the beginning of another northern hemisphere winter. It is indeed eye opening to read some of the comments from alleged professional pilots who appear to be unaware of the problems associated with flying surfaces which are contaminated with frost, snow or ice. I can only presume that they are either pretending to be professionals or else we do still have a very serious problem in the industry. One in particular was someone from an Eastern European airline who pointed out that they are allowed to depart with up to 3mm of ice on the wing. It seems as though the manual was translated and the context was lost during translation!

I altered the title of this thread because too may people took the rather original, rather simplistic title literally and assumed a broad brush was being applied to Iberia pilots in general. I'm sure that is not the case with a world class national flag carrier. However, that does not mean that there are individuals who are possibly going to take unnecessary risks. That could apply to any airline in the world.

The revised title still conveys the original posters alarm and concerns but isolates the pilots to a specific flight. Whether they have seen or heard about this thread or their management have questioned them about it doesn't matter. The rest of us will hopefully be just that bit more aware of another of the multitude of safety critical areas we have responsibility for.

Here we can discuss the perceptions that have been aroused by the original post and the subsequent tapes that were linked to. We all draw our own conclusions and a few even go so far as to post them for others to see. This is the information age and fighting against the current and arguing about whether any of this should be published is not going to stop it. At least here, it can be discussed amongst our peers. We try to prevent the glory seekers with no relevant background or experience from taking the limelight with posts that make us cringe by pointing out the error of their way of thinking and hopefully educating them a bit better.

[despegue]

Sleggy,

You were an NPPL student in February 2007 yet now you are flying A330?...

Let me give you some sound advice. Never rush to blame people, especially not as an officer. Part of your duty as a responsable person for safety and a head of a work-team is to first try and know all the facts before judgement. That is called leadership.
ATC merely asked 2 times wether the involved flight needed de-icing, only the captain of the neigbour aircraft (LTD) warned the crew that he percieved it necessary for them to de-ice (again?). Well done to him as most here agree.

By the way, any pilot refusing to aknowledge the danger of icing should not fly. Period. Wether it is passengers, cargo or sightseeing the Grand-Canyon in his own little C152.

[Dream Land]

De-icing when not needed is as bad as no de-icing when needed :eek:
Nonsense, pure and simple. To continue the CRJ example, the effect of de-icing or anti-icing fluid on the scheduled speeds is precisely zero. On the dash 8s I believe it's a five knot adder. The aircraft is certified/approved for the use of the fluids - which means we know what it does and we've given procedures that work with it present. We also know what ice and snow CAn do - see the 30 knot adder mentioned above. After reading some of the previous posts I thought that all my years spent in ORD and MSP were all for nothing, thank you Mad (Flt) Scientist for identifying science fiction from science fact. :D

[andrijander]

quote:

I understand you mean controlled time of arrival. Please excuse me if I'm wrong. If I'm not I would have to think you believe there is a big scheme of things in which "we" have a plan in which i am a player. Nothing more far away from the reality. I have no links with iberia. i'm not even living in Spain -even though i am a national-.

The only reason why I am reading this post is because the title is quite gripping and it called my attention. I insist, as I said before in the post, IDo NOT WISH TO ENTER THE DEBATE ABOUT TAKING OFF WITH ICE as I have no saying there but in Spain there are a lot of lawsuits filled for what we call "difamacion" which is what happens when people say something about somebody else which is not true.

Now I don't know what is fact and what isn't and I'M BY NO MEANS SAYING THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT just expressing my opinion and my concern about what could be counterproductive for all as seen by my own experience -and in this case especially for the original poster-.

Hopefully I'm wrong and I have also misunderstood some of the posts written after mine and not directly referred to me. Otherwise I will definitely understand why some people who may be aware of this forum do not post -after all in CRM we should be treated with respect and our opinions, for silly they may be should be given a fair chance, don't you think?

Yours,
A.

[calypso]

This thread has now split into three separate arguments:

1.- Aircraft must not fly with ice/snow/contamination. I think the overwhelming consensus is that for well know aerodinamic reasons this is a no brainer - deice. I would doubt that many pilots will dispute that, but see point 3 below. Even the Iberia crew in question might not argue against it too much in the cold light of day whatever the particular circunstances that led to that bad decision on the day.

2.- Is it a good idea to name and shame crews in Pprune with specific airline, flight number and date? I don't think it is because we do not have all the facts, the crews involved cannot defend themselves and provide their side of the argument. This is unfair plus a lynch mob can, and in this case has, develop. All the benefits of discussion and learning from the mistakes of others can be had without naming specific crews. There are other more appropiate channels for investigating incidents with inbuilt checks and balances that can be used. An old CRM tool "discuss what is right not who is right".

3.- National pride and culture diferences. While I blush reading some of the stuff that some of my compatriots write in order to defend the indefensible it is also true that the brits love climbing into their high horse. In some threads in PPrune you would think that in the UK they pee Channel no 5 while the rest of us make do with the smelly yellow stuff. The attitude of "do it our way and you will be civilized like we are" creates its equal response of " we are right regardless and will not accept any form of criticism". Two ugly sides of the same coin and a definite obstacle to learning from each other.


On a slightly different tack I am bemused by the post by a passenger that says that he supervises the deicing. Does he have the current ATIS, does he know the current temperature, does he know what type of fluid are they using, does he have the holdover tables, has he done a winter ops corse, etc, etc, etc. I wonder if he also goes with the engineers to check the oil, does he check the tyre pressures, does he come into the flight deck to see how I fly the ILS, where does it stop. I think that passengers and indeed anybody should be encoraged to speak up if they see contamination on the wing (or indeed on any other safety issue). If a pax told me about contamination on my A/c i would be very grateful, I will tell him so and I would investigate. It does however smacks of delusions of grandeur to think that he supervises the deicing and it also implies that there are lots of aicraft flying around unsafely, this is clearly not true.

[stilton]

Bullshot,
We have an 'infratek' heated 'drive through' hangar for deicing in one of our hubs and it is not as good as portrayed.

Takes a loooong time to do an incomplete job and, after you taxi out you have to be sprayed off anyway.

Waste of money methinks, but, good to park aircraft in for maintenance to work on, sort of out of the weather...

[RatherBeFlying]

I do not dispute LTD's observations and would welcome him or anybody else pointing out an apparently unsafe condition on any a/c I'm about to fly in.

But for argument's sake, lets consider that since the takeoff was successful, some factors had to have worked in their favor.

I would venture to guess that dry snow falling on a flying surface below freezing temperature in air below freezing temperature at low humidity (M03/M11 as reported in the METAR) does not adhere. Note also that adhere is the word used in the FAR previously cited.

In considering declining deicing in such conditions, I would very much want to know that the flying surfaces, especially the tailplane, were clean and cold before the snow began falling.

Without venturing into glaciology and avalanche science, a fluffy uncompressed accumulation will generally blow off whereas a settled accumulation may not.

It has been mentioned that some pilots are willing to decline deicing when in their judgement the snow will blow off. When the physics are in their favor, the takeoff will work. The majority will elect deicing and I'd rather be flying behind them.

[Grunf]

With all do respect, RatherbeFlying,

it seems you are not on the professional side (neither in the air nor on the ground). So far regulations are strict and there is no room for estimating if it s "puffy" snow that will blow away or it is 1mm of ice that will get you down faster then you expect.

It is not allowed to take off with anything on your lifting surfaces. Period.

Please check the appropriate FARs, JARs etc, if you know what I mean. No derogatory remarks, just my point of view.

Regards

[andrijander]

Very well written calypso.

Commitedtostay: I agree 100% but that flies both ways -How come I am boxed as a conspiror when I raise it but it doesn't happen the other way; that was the intention behind my original post. I hope you mean the same.

Out,
A.

Btw: I am an air traffic controller working in a center with well over 30 different nationalities (we even have a japanese exchange for 3 months now) and agree with you in the fact that the passport doesn't make you any better or worse...it's a piece of paper.

[DK_FCI]

I would venture to guess that dry snow falling on a flying surface below freezing temperature in air below freezing temperature at low humidity (M03/M11 as reported in the METAR) does not adhere. Note also that adhere is the word used in the FAR previously cited.


Take-off must not be attempted if snow, ice or frost are present in any amount on the wings, upper fuselage and tail surfaces of the airplane. As a consequence of this requirement, the following general precautions must be observed in cold weather operations:

(1) Contrary to the misconception that only the forward section aerodynamic surfaces are critical areas, all areas of the wings and tail surfaces and their attached control surfaces, and the upper fuselage, are critical areas as regards the effect of frozen contamination.

(2) It must never be assumed that an apparently dry and loose form of frozen moisture, for example, dry snow, will be removed by the slipstream during the initial take-off roll. For instance, a dry snowfall that remains free and uncompacted on the ground may melt and later refreeze to form an adhesive layer on the surfaces of an airplane just removed from a hangar.

(3)........


Yes RatherBeFlying the FAR uses the word adhere but check the quote from my FCOM above.

[Right Way Up]

I am not sure you can just throw away the nationality issue. Southern med cultures are in no way similar to Northern european cultures. Whereas us Brits will sweat over rules & try to cover every eventuality (whilst bursting blood vessels) the Spanish would probably throw up their arms & say why sweat it when it will probably work out anyway. Maybe somewhere in the middle an ideal culture exists.

[FullWings]

It's fascinating to read this discussion and compare it with other incidents that have been commented on in this forum, like the 747 with an engine shutdown out of LAX that continued on towards its destination. In that case the crew performed actions that were approved by the aircraft manufacturer, the operator and its regulatory authority and yet came under some intense criticism.

In this one, we have a crew in direct contravention of the airline's SOPs, the regulator's instructions and the manufacturer's manuals but they are still getting quite a bit of support from various quarters on here.

The rules surrounding wing contamination are very strict because it is a literal matter of life-and-death. This crew were very lucky to get away with what has been described... the accident records show this to be true.

[woodpecker]

I quote Calipso,

If a pax told me about contamination on my A/c i would be very grateful

I totally agree, and would appreciate (and give attention to) any misgivings, whether from outside agencies,the CC or pax regarding the aircraft.

Every winter BEA came out with a publication called "Winter-Wise" that reminded us all of all aspects of winter operation. It pulled together the various locations of the procedures, take-off data, limitations, hold over times etc.

Must see if I've got a copy and send it to Iberia Boston.

[old,not bold]

From Danny's post..

It seems as though the manual was translated and the context was lost during translation!

Danny was writing in the context of the thread. At the risk of thread drift I would suggest that this may a more serious safety issue than we know.

I have seen and spent many days rewriting some appallingly dangerous languistic errors in FOMs and the like, with in the last 10 years. Mostly these are when non-English speakers are writing English, or when they are translating from English into another language (usually when plagiarising another operator's lengthy technical manuals such as FOM's.) The problem is that they are excellent English speakers, but they do not pick up the full meaning from formal written English and do not realise that they have not done so. They lose the context and the real meaning, exactly as Danny wrote, because they translate word by word, sentence by sentence. The grammar is good, but the interpretation is poor.

[svante]

Regarding de iceing or not - if I am in doubt, there is no doubt, I deice. For what it´s worth....:)

[joehunt]

Right Way Up (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=26797)

Agree with your post.

There is no room in a aviation, for the "Loss of Face" and macho-ism attitude, prevalent in some cultures. Still a big problem in my view.

[BRACKET04]

Yes. there is a silence. Iberia has a good reputation regarding safety and good airmanship. No body wants to blame a 340 crew with a high level of experience just because a pilot who nobody knows put a post in PPRuNe. I think every body could speak about things we do not like in day to day operation from other airliners and we do not post every thing we see.
This does not seem to be trying to improve safety but just a kind of blame that this pilot should do "face to face" with that captain and not hiding his face in this forum.

Regards.

[PBL]

First, let me offer to find out definitively what the regulator means by "adhere" if this should turn out to be an issue.

Second, there is clearly a cultural difference being discussed, but I am not sure people have put the finger on the difference. Let me attempt to do so by commenting on the post from BRACKET04, who has identified himherself as living in Spain.
Yes. there is a silence. Iberia has a good reputation regarding safety and good airmanship. No body wants to blame a 340 crew with a high level of experience just because a pilot who nobody knows put a post in PPRuNe.
The first point heshe makes (Point 1) concerns the reputation and history of the pilots whose actions are being discussed, and comparing with the (relatively weak, informal) actions of the commentator (posting a comment on an anonymous pilots forum). And the former comes out the winner; BRACKET infers that is also so for others in Spain ("nobody wants").

This does not seem to be trying to improve safety but just a kind of blame that this pilot should do "face to face" with that captain and not hiding his face in this forum.

Point 2: heshe says this is not an issue about improving safety.

Point 3: heshe suggests that the dispute should be differently handled by a different set of actions.

Now, I think it would be mistaken to say that so-called "northern" cultures are less concerned about social status and behavior (Points 1 and 3) than Mediterrean cultures. But they may be more inclined to think that they are universal ("everybody does like we do; or should").

I think the real difference, the one that may be unbridgeable, comes with Point 2.

Let me show how by taking sides. I find it incomprehensible (and I mean that word in a literal sense) that someone could think that this discussion is not about safety.

One could imagine (I speculate; it is for BRACKET to correct me if I am wrong) that heshe means rather to say that the discussion is *less* about safety and *more* about social status. But this is a fact that can be tested: count up the number of serious posts about deicing and flying with ice, and the number of serious posts about status (I don't mean the ones saying "I can't believe you people are saying ....."+25 perjoratives, but those expressing views on the priority: "it's captain's judgement; he judged it; end of story", or "the captain should be relieved of his command"). We will see that the serious "safety" posts vastly outweigh the serious "status" posts. So a view that the discussion is less about safety than about status would be simply wrong.

PBL

[andrijander]

Right way up,
it is the generalising I am complaining about: not all brits are as hard workers and not all spaniards run around like headless chickens waiting for fate to choose for them.
This forum was about a chain of events in a complex situation and, of course, the persons' attitude may kick in. Now saying that a whole nation is like this or like that out of one issue is out of place. I do not see myself nor many other of my countrymen like that -even though there are plenty who may well be-. But please stick your head out of wonderland and look around. Saying that in england we do and in spain you don't....are we already in the 21st century?
A.

BTW danny: please understand it is statements like the one above that make me get on the defensive, not what other people from my country may do. Being labelled as something I'm not is what set me in motion.

[Airbus_a321]

@BRACKET04 :ok::ok:

[Re-Heat]

It is somewhat disingenious to suggest LTD's remarks are unreliable when the comments are clearly on the linked audio, and presumably was not the only flight crew member in his aircraft who witnessed this.

Many argumentative defensive postings seem to be trying to force this thread away from the main purpose of why LTD posted - his concern.

I cannot see any reason for trying to influence the direction of the thread, unless such postings are from the ignorant who are not involved in or knowledgeable about professional aviation.

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Perhaps it is worth underlining the Iberia pilots were not flying their own private aircraft. At the risk of upsetting a few nigels on this forum a flight crew on public transport take on board the same legal responsibility as a train or bus driver. They are paid to transport public passengers who have paid them to undertake that task. Public transport pilots,train drivers, ferry captains and bus drivers fall in to the same group. You are paid to transport the public safely.

If you want to take risks and fly your own aircraft then go and do a private flight. Public transport is public transport. The Iberia crew and Iberia should be ashamed of taking risks with passenegers who place their lives and their trust in them.

[Plastic Bug]

From what I read here, every comment on this forum and from ATC was generated from the initial comment from LTD on the day and within this forum.

ATC never says YOU (IB) need to be de-iced, they say BA is concerned.

So, it all goes back to one persons stated observation and opinion. From what I can see here, 13 pages later, LTD is the sole actual eyeball operating witness.

While this is an excellent hypothetical discussion, you may as well delete every reference to any specific operator as there is no actual proof of the alleged incident.

It was the opinion of LTD that IB required deicing. It was the opinion of the IB crew that they did not. You can argue the pros and cons of the resulting decision until the cows come home, but unless you were actually there on the day and saw for yourself, it's all just an exercise in philosophy.

What remains is that what we have here is a difference of opinion between crews of different aircraft. It appears to me that somebody is upset because his opinion, while noted, was disregarded.

PB

[Hand Solo]

LTD concern could be that IB was unsafe to fly from his perspective but I suppose that the IB crew had a better view from inside their plane better than LTD from inside his.

Somehow I doubt it. Looking through a dirty cabin window hardly gives you a great view of the wing. I would think that someone sitting high above the wing level in a 747 cockpit would have a much better view.


They also should have had somebody talking to them during pushback and startup (I usually have a ground engineer) that could have risen some concern if their wing was really covered in snow.

Unless your ground engineers have a 4 metre neck they can't see on top of the wing.

The IB crew, for a reason that could have been perfectly valid, like having already deiced their A340, didn't obey his advice, infuriating LTD.

You'd have to question the competence of the deicing crew if they managed to leave snow all over the top of the wings and yet there was none of the usual mess on the ground. My, that sounds almost like they hadn't deiced at all. I didn't here LTD getting infuriated in the radio (it's all there in the tapes), he sounds quite calm.

LTD comes here and spits poison over three fellow professionals, the herd follows suit with no clue of what really happened.

We've heard the tapes, thats a pretty good clue.

IF they really taxied and took-off covered in snow they deserve more training in winter operations,

Thats the first sensible thing you've written.

BUT we only have LTD words here, that's why I'm asking if they are to be considered reliable.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what LTD would have to gain by inventing the whole snow story and then telling the ATC authorities who will undoubtedly record the whole conversation. Nothing I can think of.

[DK_FCI]

@All posters


Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs

We still dont really know what happened - just remember that

[windytoo]

just because the pilot was flying an iberia aircraft how do we know he is spanish?? the man was a lucky idiot regardless of his nationality.

[Skydrol Leak]

Oh God, has this ever went on and on...
1.Light Twin Driver did a job that everyone else should; being an airman and showing an airmanship.
2.Captain of IB is a Captain with a reason; years of training, years of flying, years of upgrading and thousands of hours on type. He is the ultimate person to decide If that flight will take a place that day.
3.Company's OM specify the de-icing or anti-icing procedures and maybe that day the Captain has met the requirements and despite all of us being overwhelmed over this case the Captain Rodriguez was quite happy and relaxed to not undertake the icing procedures.
4. If you fly for a flag carrier It doesn't mean you are a better or a worst pilot than someone who flies for Ryanair for example, but it is up to an airmanship that makes a clear distinguishment from "a pilot" and "the pilot"!

I support the cowboys in this case.

Over and out!

[Airbus_a321]

his professional opinion:confused:
Why you think his is more professional than the IB-crew? He is just spreading rumours, nothing else.
Just by naming and blaming and so easily to identify a flightcrew from another airline, for me is just a sign that he is totally u n p r o f e s s i o n a l :sad:
If the Spaniards are the Cowboys, is he the self-made Sheriff or what?
Finally the aircraft took-off and landed safely. So, where is the problem. :confused:

[SaturnV]

There was not a lot of snow at KBOS on December 2. The climatological record for December 2.
THE BOSTON CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR DECEMBER 2 2007
TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY [Dec 2]
MAXIMUM 28 1159 PM
MINIMUM 18 430 AM

PRECIPITATION (IN)
YESTERDAY 0.04
SNOWFALL (IN)
YESTERDAY 0.3
WIND (MPH)
RESULTANT WIND SPEED 5 RESULTANT WIND DIRECTION W (290)
HIGHEST WIND SPEED 17 HIGHEST WIND DIRECTION NW (330)
HIGHEST GUST SPEED 23 HIGHEST GUST DIRECTION NW (310)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED 7.2
WEATHER CONDITIONS
THE FOLLOWING WEATHER WAS RECORDED YESTERDAY.
LT FREEZING RAIN
SNOW
LIGHT SNOW
SLEET
FOG
HAZE
Source:
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=box
The radar image on post #110 shows very light snow, perhaps no more than flurries or virga at KBOS. Though the image appears to be a base reflectivity radar snapshot and not a composite reflectivity snapshot. (From Boston north, the radar near KPWM will sometimes fill in the precipitation from the airport north, but that would be a composite radar image.)

[Hand Solo]

Goodness there are some real issues here with the 'Latin' types (as so perceptively pointed out previously). Saying the aircraft took off and landed safely so where is the problem doesn't cut it. The guy got lucky. Next time maybe he won't be. We're not in the business of being lucky, we're in the business of being safe. Is it a rumour? If you listen to the tape I'd say it's pretty much a fact the guy had snow on his wings, unless you think LTD was making it all up and lying to Boston ATC.

This thread is spookily similar to the one on te TAP A310 flyby. Anyone impartial can review the evidence for what it is and see the implicit failings, yet any response from Spain, Italy or Portugal is limited to attacking the original poster, questioning his truthfulness and generally trying to hide from the facts. One can only hope that sort of attitude is not indicative of the industry as a whole in those nations.

[laic]

In Canada, after the Dryden accident we went from one extreme to the other. To the point that now, the captain is the last guy to decide whether to get de/anti-ice or not. Just about anybody within a 10 km circle from the airport seems to know better than the front end crew on this.
I'm supportive of the cowboys on this one.

[OCEANIC CLEARANCE]

It seems that many UK (northern way of life, as you call it) come direct from the NASA academy or achieved their license flying the Discovery!!! :confused:

Was anybody (excepting LTD) in Boston that day????? := NO! So what the hell are you discussing????

Should any plane T.O. with snow or ice? - := I'm absolutely sure they shouldn't. No possibility of discussion!

Should a pilot post the number and airline of a flight that has done a mistake (or not) on a public forum? := NO! LTD did an awful job!

Should any pilot initiate a National Crusade against Iberia - Spanish pilots? - Of course not! We are coleagues up there. NOT ENEMIES!! Doesn't care where we come from!!!!

I don't know how many CRM courses do you get on BA....but maybe they are not enough, or maybe you are still in Cockpit RM or Cabin RM! Open your eyes....you are not the aviation.....you are just an small part of it!

[SaturnV]

One additional point on the amount of snow recorded at KBOS on December 2.

Often, a ratio of 10:1 for snow : precipitable water amount is used (assuming air temperature of about -3 Celsius); the ratio is higher when the temperature is lower (such as -8 Celsius), and the ratio is less if the temperature is near or at freezing.

The 0.04 inches of precipitable water corresponds rather nicely with the measured 0.3 inch total snow amount reported for the airport for the entire 24 hour period.

The reported wind direction at KBOS, from the northwest, would tend to support a lighter or fluffier snow than if the wind had been from the east or northeast and off the water.
______________________________________
Air Florida took off in the midst of a continuing snowstorm, and after KDCA had been closed for about 90 minutes so the runway could be plowed.